I bet you know better than me what kind of conversations there is in Tea Parties. I've never been in any.

Anyway, in your next Tea Party you can inform your girl friends that Catherine of Braganza, the Portuguese wife of King Charles II of England was credited for introducing the custom of drinking tea in Britain, a custom that was already very popular among the Portuguese nobility.

If Catherine would have known that her new people are so quickly hooked and so desperate for the stuff that they even would go as far as to set up the opium trade with China to finance their habit, she might have hesitated.

Repost with permission in response to FB's correct remark that I failed in attributing Portugal to the Atlantic:
My bad,
I am a victim of underfunded geography classes indeed.
And I need to join a mouse- and moniker-clicking course, too.
My poison today is Canadian whisky on the rocks, tea is for colonialists ;).

I guess the moderators did´t like my comment naming a brand of a good Canadian whisky ...or maybe it was the part about the marvelous Portuguese wines...
BTW, Your fail was not in attributing Portugal to the Atlantic, but to the Mediterranean Sea... :) Portugal frontiers are: Spain (North and East) and the Atlantic Ocean ( South and West). At least you didnt ask me if there is a bridge linkink Portugal and Morocco as an american asked me once. :)

Greece is also a small country, insignificant in world (and even in European) affairs.. But when the Euro crisis started, Greece was not considered so insignificant. And I guess many Europeans were interested in the what Greeks thought in their last elections...Well, we all know that the rumor-spreading agencies (i.e. the rating agencies), made Greece a very important country in European affairs and therefore in world affairs. But the fact is that Greece and Greeks (the roaring mouse) made the first page news worldwide. Everyone cares what happens to them and what its citizens think.

... if you start a petition on whether international finance has a "vulture nature" and should be put on a short leash, sign me up;

... if you say that international speculation has aggravated the euro crisis, I'm similarly in complete agreement. The whole business has been allowed to roam unchecked for far too long. Time for tighter regulation.

But if you claim that international speculation was THE ONLY reason for the euro crisis, and that it would have long been over without, as you do, count me out. Post-Lehman speculation was merely the trigger, not the cause of the euro crisis.

There are structural reasons why "one size fits it all" is NOT the best solution AT PRESENT, and why a differentiated approach would be more suitable.

Metaphorically speaking: starting from different places doesn't mean you cannot reach the same goal (one shared currency), but simply that you have to take different paths to it (with some joining decades later than others, thus giving them time to adapt FIRST).

@ Pumpernickel (2/2):
.
That's been my position from the start, and it's not remotely "anti-European" - and Pedro, Sanmartinian and (to a lesser degree and softened by your good-humoredness) yourself don't do yourselves a favor by painting everybody suggesting a more nuanced approach into a corner by calling them names.
.
I'd also like to believe that even though I refuse to "enlist" (pun intended) into someone's "volunteer army" of bloggers, my privately entrusted contact data are in safe hands nevertheless and aren't passed on within 48 hrs after providing them. I kept mum about the matter for over a year, until some other blogger told us the same (and worse) had happened to him. Of course, this doesn't mean you, but I suggest you have a word with the true zealots in your camp. With cheap tricks like these, you only loose the middle ground.

It is pro-European: trial and error to investigate the possible, the very opposite of the remote dirigiste Brussels ideologue horrorshow and the -umf- misty-eyed dreamers to whom you refer caught in a loop on this blog.
.
"until some other blogger told us the same"

You mean Accrux? That was despicable. It made me wonder what sort of twisted control-freak could pull such a trick here.

(And without it, I would be long gone. I actually had just announced - and quite dramatically, I would say;-) - to retire from blogging, but when Accrux related that story, I was drawn right back in. Oh, sweet addiction. LOL)

I know the Sao Martinho d. P. man likes the CIA act, and that's all fine with me, but he should stay clear of threats and the like.

I am not saying Wall Street and City snake oil was THE ONLY cause of the financial crisis. The underlying cause was the end of growth worldwide, except in the BRICS arena and Germany making stuff the BRICS, ME and rest of the world fancies.

I am saying that the GIPS + Italy would have been alright without „the markets“, which mainly means The City, betting against them. The bold response should have been unlimited support via QE already three years ago, which would have stopped the run on GIPS bonds in the very beginning and cost much less than he never ending bailouts … on hindsight! It is always easy on hindsight and Merkel does not do “bold”.

Her approach, austerity, is a reflection on “what worked for Germany should be tried by the GIPS” except the GIPS don't do “austerity”. They also much more prefer to work in the black economy than on 400€ Minijobs + subsidies to cover their minimum needs Grundsicherung. The GIPS fall back on their families and the black economy, if any. Different approach.

Germany should stop brainwashing their own and send out the wrong signals to the periphery, namely “I'm alright Jack”. Germany should tell the world that it has 3 million unemployed (7.8%) and another 7 million, some say 8 million “hidden unemployed” which adds what, another 20% or so to the unemployment rate. That's what we should tell the Greeks and Spaniards when they point accusing fingers at the “fat Germans”. Not pretend “we are alright, do as we do and you will be alright”. No, “do as we do as there is not other way to get into the new reality, where we can no longer live beyond our means and expect “the natives” in Asia and Africa to carry our life style by working for peanuts.” Time to allow them their place in the sun by taking the towels off our Western deck chairs.

It looks like we are entering a phase in the West were a large part of the
working population, I reckon 20 – 30 %, will permanently remain in the
“underclass” for want of a better word, i.e. be content with living below
or around the poverty limit, which in Germany is around 930 Euros, which have
to cover, rent, heating, food and clothing. Anybody earning less than that
can receive subsidies, if he applies for them. At present about 15% of the
population are affected. With more and more of the middle classes on the
skids it is only a matter of time before 20 – 30% are reached.

Growth has reached its limit and with it the kind of capitalism as we know
it. If we want to prevent social upheavals, revolutions, civil wars, we will
have to find ways to share out the wealth more evenly both on national and
international level. If our elites should resist this trend, they will end up
on lanterns when the masses are desperate enough. If the rich countries want
to live in union with the poorer countries they must be prepared to share out
their wealth or opt for strict isolation which in today's and tomorrow's
world will mean to be powerless, a play ball of the superpowers.

This is how I view the confrontation we are discussing day in day out. On the
one hand the UK, an island, wanting to go it alone, if we are to believe the
voices of UKIP, recede into splendid isolation, seeking salvation in
“everyone for himself”.

On the other hand Germany, France and the rest seeking strength in numbers
but unwilling to treat the EU as if it were their “nation”. Germany
expecting every country to stand on its own feet like the Swiss cantons and
finding to its chagrin, that many are not able to come up to this ideal,
written into the EU Constitution and expect to be bailed out via Eurobonds.

What next? I do expect one or two countries, perhaps more, to leave the EZ in
the belief that they will be better off with their own currency, which they
can print and devalue as needed. The question is: Will France be part of this
group, as MC maintains? If so, should Germany and the countries willing to
stay together and follow the rules maintain the Euro or also revert to their
own currencies? My money is on them remaining in the Euro and several new
countries joining after careful vetting and deliberation after also the rules
have been changed, as they should have been before the Euro came into being
in the direction of the Swiss model.

"Time to cut 'em loose. Back to their sovereign currencies is the only solution. It will cost more up front, but the longer you allow them to delay, the more it will cost."

I agree but only as far as Greece is concerned.

Sadly, they do not want to leave, although, in their case I truly believe it would play out well.

The Iberians have no desire to leave either and in their case it would not play out well in the longer term. A straight jacket the Euro may be but one that, if one is willing to accept the pain, will provide results, already does provide results, if I am correctly informed.

Pumepernickel: Germany should tell the world that it has 3 million unemployed (7.8%) and another 7 million, some say 8 million “hidden unemployed” which adds what, another 20% or so to the unemployment rate. That's what we should tell the Greeks and Spaniards when they point accusing fingers at the “fat Germans”.

Pumpernipple,

I totally agree with that assessment. Germany's real problems are masked by its unique trade relationship with the BRICS, China in particular. Once those countries are in crisis or stagnation mode, Germany will be massively pulled down as well, Wile E. Coyote style.

It's fair to assume that those markets will retain moderate to high growth rates, but their domestic companies are also catching up on the value-chain side and are becoming increasingly challenging. Which means that one should better not rely too much on export strength.

Still, if the EU und NAFTA would join forces, Germany would certainly be one of the main beneficiaries on the European side. But that will only happen if emma does not become a future American leader.

I have to disagree here Pumper. They all need to return to their sovereign currencies, or in time, they will drag down the global economy as well. It's better to have a soft currency, and make a lot of money running your low tech business, then to have no savings, no chance of making a success of your business, but zero inflation.

Cooked books zero inflation is nothing to crow about. The inflation argument is the bankers argument of course, nothing more. Any sound business man, if he was making drachmas, liras, whatever, could always convert them to dollars or DMs.

The key is to be able to make good money with your business venture. Never mind will the lira lose it's value over time, that's secondary for a worker/businessman, and only primary for an elite rich person, who's no longer has to work

This hard currency is killing commerce, and I believe, the chickens will come home to roost soon enough. The ECB's already proactive. It's only a matter of time before these hand outs start hurting closer to home.

Give them all a currency they can devalue, and the only ones who will be complaining are the bankers and the elites...laughs

The Euro is a banker's scheme Marie. We were much better off the way it was before. You made enough money to eat well, go out on the town, and dress well. Now what do we have? "A strong currency", but nobody has any money to spend. A banker's wet dream...laughs

Your goals are noble, but your belief that eventually, "everybody will stand on their own feet" (= doesn't need transfers) within the euro is utopian.

And don't kid yourself: the transfers needed in the absence of substantial reforms are of a different order than the measly 1 trillion which the EU currently distributes among its members in 7 years, and which equal a mere 1 % of EU GDP.

In order to homogenize living standards within their national borders, EU member states employ 40-45% of their GDP on average.

You might have read that the HWWI think tank + PwC released a study suggesting a minimum of 10% of GDP in transfers would be needed to even out differences in living standards throughout the EU, which roughly equals 2/3 of the size of the German federal budget (Bundeshaushalt) and would mean that e.g. Germany's NET contributions would QUINTUPLE from 10 billion/year to 50 billion/year.

“So, no transfer union for me. If euro membership doesn't work for a member state, it should leave and reapply when it feels it is ready. “

I agree. This always has been my take on it and if my recent postings have given a different impression, I may have expressed it badly.

The point I am making is that Germany, today, is already in the process of lowering its standard of living (unnecessarily, I hasten to add) and its “underclass” 30% or so of the working population are not better off than e.g. the Spaniards and definitely worse off than the Italians BUT no song and dance is being made about it, as should be the case. The periphery has to understand that Germany is in the same boat and its suffering is the same yet they take it stoically or stupidly, although the recent actions of VERDI asking for 6.5% wage increases indicate that FINALLY there is a reaction.

Germany could afford to bring their underclass up to middle class standards, thus lowering its competitiveness and blend in better with France and the rest.
France cannot afford its standard of living but rather than following the German example it hopes to get money out of Germany which could only afford to help due to shifting more and more of its middle class to underclass status. Maher is right in this respect. Germany's “efficiency” and competitiveness is achieved on the back of a considerable part of its working population. Agenda 2010 has overshot its aim. It is only now being remedied.

Germany is not doing enough to tell the rest of Europe about this REAL situation, which would then earn it respect rather than hate due to the present misinformation and misapprehension of its real situation which even a majority of Germans do not realize, brainwashed as they are by their own propanda of their success story. Yes, we are a success but only because we are gradually turning a part of our population into Chinese coolies.

Unless somebody hacked into the sherry moniker, suppressed the old one and invented a new delightful sherry, which is unlikely, the second theory is more probable. The old handler has been sacked and replaced by a new one, perhaps the same that does germanambassador, highy ingtelligent and subtle with a good sense of humour.

What puzzles me is that emma occasionally also recently came up with good comments pointing to a different person or being hacked occasionally. Sometimes I think I am one of the few here who is genuine.

Hi, of course the penname is being hacked. By a very fine person intellectually - I call him Lawnmower Man. Really a breath of fresh air - as you say, though from a regular in a new skin. Unfortunately this new skin is a weak spot as is due to be - and correctly - liquidated by our host.

I don't believe in the 'un-genunity' of posters, Pumpernickel. There are some multi-nickers but 'agencies' operating on the umpteenth pages of _ONE_ TE blog?

And to your general input, questions (and answers),no matter if I agree or not - I did already say I missed you.

"France cannot afford its standard of living but rather than following the German example it hopes to get money out of Germany which could only afford to help due to shifting more and more of its middle class to underclass status. Maher is right in this respect. Germany's “efficiency” and competitiveness is achieved on the back of a considerable part of its working population. Agenda 2010 has overshot its aim. It is only now being remedied."

The crap that you keep on reproducing is astonishing

Maher never said such a inepsy, he rather flamed you on the Germany's Beggar thay neighbour policy made at the expense of her EZ partners

we can afford our Society style, if we get rid of the euro. Without the euro our Debt would be less than 17%

You never gave a cent to France, should I remind you that we are net contribuators to all the EU/EZ organisations and funds.

I think the new "working poor" are more around 15-20% than 30%, but the phenomenon IS a real issue. Schroeder's reforms were good for the country, but tough on individual Germans affected by it.

The larger issue IMHO is how to compete as an economy when (to use the most recent example) some bad ass CEO tells his employees to basically go **** themselves, announcing to relocate to India and produce there for wages of "under 1 dollar per hour". (I'm refering to that incident in France, of course.)

I don't think protectionism is the answer (in the end, all would loose), but staying ahead in terms of producing well-paying high-end products is.

And that's my biggest chagrain with the current state of affairs in Europe: Instead of focusing on keeping this continent attractive for high-end direct investment, we are trying to make global investors happy by effectively bailing them out and (again) socialising the losses.

On another note, I, too, am still convinced this blog is swamped with fake avatars, and I'm pretty sure I could determine who they are. But I've stopped caring. It's like reviews on Tripadvisor - you somehow expect 50%+ are fakes, and try to work around them.

As for Marie, she's en pleine forme, apparently. I must say I know so many decent French people (easily 1 in 5 of pour Brussels posse is French) that it's a pitty we are treated to the only one who apparently doesn't know how Aspirin is pronounced.

@ Pumpernickel:
.
I should add that PR was never a German strength. They should hire Italians to do the job for them. Let's all hope Berlusconi will have a bit of free time as of next week - he has undeniable strengths in that department.

Pumpernoia,
I bet your mother called you Thomas.
Of course I am the original.
How can you doubt me?
I thought you are a man of faith, and now you turn out to be a heretic.
At the last supper we attended together, it was around carnival, you ate, laughed and farted like there was no tomorrow. You went around and offered bisous to everybody, and declared us BFF and shit.
And now like Judas ran to the Romans you run to Josh, who has been confirmed MMMM (malicious moniker mischief maker) by the temple scholar viva as well as all the Serafinneys and Cherubirts whom descended upon us from heaven.
When Marie the Rooster, will have unmistakably crowed the third time next morning, you'll figure that you should not rat out friends for a few Euros more.

Liquidated my ass...
.
Forlana, Forlana, people do have a point about your occasionally authoritarian wording.
.
Thanks for the flowers, though.
.
I'm so delighted that I'll make sure you will get your new fur a little bit faster.
.
(*shouting other direction while whipcracking*) Birtnick! Work Faster! They need your tax money sooner than expected!

And YOU,
.
Josh of all trades
.
should better not give any comments on me.
.
Because I am you.
.
Emma knows it and beamed it to the WORLD.
.
And you know as well as me that what emma says is true.
.
So better deal with it.
.
You're me, I'm you.

«L´enfer c´est les autres» Sartre
A boy and his grandfahter. The first could do no wrong, had all the opinions, knew everything. The second listened. And then, he said: Have you ever think that maybe your´re wrong? That things are not exactly like you think they are? Some times, you just have to listen to the world. "It is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, then to open one´s mouth, and remove all doubt." Lincoln
The boy´s name was politics. The grandfahter´s name was History.
The financial crisis of 2008 was a teachable moment of what can happen if we trust the markets to regulate themselves. We have to redisign and to rethink the international regulation of Financial Institutions (see, in detail, the fabulous work of Roberta Romano, "For Diversity in the International Regulation of Financial Institutions: Rethinking the Basel Arquitecture", YALE Law School).
We have to rethink Europe. More Europe or Less Europe? The uneployment rate: 5,3% in Germany (the second lowest in the Euro Area), 26,1 % in Spain (the second Highest in The Euro Zone). Overall, the euro area (EA17) seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate was 11.7% (To see the detail, please go to 19/2013 - 1 February 2013, euroindicators)
What is the best alternative for Europe? Letting aside "blaming issues", no keeping score of who did what to whom. What is the best way? I believe the end of the European Union, the end of the Euro is not a solution. I still think, despite the crisis, that the European Union is the best political idea (concept) that ever existed. Don´t throw out the baby with the bath water (" Das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten.")
Two wise advices:
"All men by nature desire knowledge." Aristotle.
"We know accurately only when we know little, with knowledge doubt increases". Goethe.
A greek, and a German (two of the greatest ever) agree. This could be a lession for the sons of Aristotele and the sons of Goethe.

Meanwhile, back in the real world where most people live without ever having heard of Aristotle or Goethe, a 49 year old unemployed man, no longer entitled to claim benefit, set fire to himself outside an employment office in Nantes and died later in hospital. Since then there have been two or three similar, non fatal, attempts to do the same thing, including by a 16 year old boy.

Look, everybody else here except you understood perfectly well that when I said this was the first time this had happened in France, I was talking about this being the first time this sort of suicide in public had been committed (to my knowledge).

"...Dummkopfen.. "
Oh please, your fake German is as bad as the one used in "GRIMM".
"Ziegevolk" ...........
There is now such thing as Dummkopfen. Would be Dummköpfe.
But your definetly one ****** dumme Ziege.:-)

The complexity of humanity’s aspiration for progress lies in increasing wealth while substituting leisure time for work time. This process is conspicuously evident in today’s advanced economies including Europe’s, namely the trend towards obtaining wealth on financial markets while goods and services are provided increasingly globally. Chinese are becoming our servants so to speak and we their unproductive paid advisors (a greatly simplified shift).
.
Of course this addiction of unproductive paper economy is accompanies with serious and tangible side effects such as unemployment and undesirable distribution of income. But do not despair; before we will reach the garden of Eden where money grows on trees and everybody just lies around and get fat, we must live in this temporary but painful transition and simply wait.
.
Wait for the economic “science” to come up with the new direction and rules similar to Keynes at his time. However Nobel being preoccupied with political correctness and Americans’ insignificant work is actually a setback to ingenuity. Ability to devaluate currency, as only recommendation of Euro resentful group on these blogs, is not it either. You see the journey to “economic” garden of Eden requires exactly the opposite strong currency – ability to buy goods, services and leisure cheap.

"So, with Pedro and Sanmartinian, you are now of the opinion that the whole euro crisis is a big conspiracy brought upon the eurozone by "Wall Street" and the "City"?"

Not a conspiracy. Banksters act in accordance with their vulture nature, They smell decay and they attack. The GIPS and even Italy were naked shorted in the good old Soros fashion because there was money to be made. The response by the ECB should have been the same as by VW after their attack on VW but
Merkel lacked the nerve of Piech & Co. She is a politician with the mind of a scientist.

So, yes, I do blame the banks not excepting German banks, which were the most greedy and most stupid. Deutsche Bank London was the main culprit of Continental banks together with BNP and UBS. They should all have been nationalized like the banks in the UK, the top management sacked for incompetence at best and criminal activity at worst. Of course, they are the instigators of this crisis, lest we forget. Without their shorting of GIPS + Italy bonds the crisis would have been managed.

leaveittoviva Feb 17th, 22:01
.
"So Libya was necessary. Then Mali was necessary. And I fear Syria is just what you say it is, a means to the EU Armed Forces to cut its teeth."
.
Syria. That would be amusing. An "EU army cutting its teeth" by getting creamed by Turks and/or Israelis not thrilled by having them in their back yard, to say nothing of all the jihadists that would head for Europe.
Plus I would think a fair number of "conscripts" to an "EU" bungled intervention would be shooting their "officers" in short order.

No, the "couilles molles" are the eurosheep like yourself, always blaming the Germans for everything and blindly following a lame duck president with his insane "EU" directive to create an "EU army".
.
You are a joke, and your Brussels serf president's attempts to create an "EU army" will be an even bigger one:)

A real default would have fixed these banker's wagons. They would have all gotten a big fat zero for their endeavors: "Care to speculate against sovereign nations again? I thought not." Hit them where they hurt most. In their pockets! Will never happen of course. They destroyed the nation state quite sometime ago. They own everything, and all of the politicians too.

The commodities markets would explode with profit, but everything else would be flushed down the toilet. Where now, some are just in the crapper, but nobody dares to flush. We're all financially interconnected you see. His death is my death as well. The reason not to flush.

So, the out of work poor have to wait for the necessary corrections to be made ever so slowly to recreate prosperity and work everywhere again. I'm not holding my breath. I'm dug in. The end of the world hasn't come, but let's just say, we're looking at the new normal.

Those that have will keep, and those without, will have to wait for lightening to strike for their predicament to improve. It was foolish of them to believe that the global economic boom would last forever. The bankers have it all sewn up. You have to plan for boom and bust. All resources are finite. Nothing lasts forever.

Here's how the nation state continues to exist: Each will seek to give as little economic ground as possible. The great persuader of course? The almighty flush. Proves to me the bankers got it all sewn up.

None of these politicians on the continent even dares to threaten to flush. Someone put their hand on the lever and see how quickly they come running. Skeletons in the political closet eh? I thought not...laughs

"None of these politicians on the continent even dares to threaten to flush. Someone put their hand on the lever and see how quickly they come running."
--
What's worse, Zorbas, they prefer those "dry platforms" which they won't "even dares to threaten to ...". The poltroons!

"Quite a predicament indeed. All Europeans in the Pressure Cooker."
-
I can see it. A "Eurcon" (mixed nationiality) Crack Parachute Regiment is dropped behind Syrian lines, and they'd have slit each other's throats or shot each other before they'd laid eyes on single Syrian.

"I can see it. A "Eurcon" (mixed nationiality) Crack Parachute Regiment is dropped behind Syrian lines, and they'd have slit each other's throats or shot each other before they'd laid eyes on single Syrian."

not so long ago you were crossed to lecture us for intervening in Syria, in between your Gardener made his no concern discourse on a Brit intervention in africa and ME... here are we with a kool aid Birdie

"I can see it. A "Eurcon" (mixed nationiality) Crack Parachute Regiment is dropped behind Syrian lines, and they'd have slit each other's throats or shot each other before they'd laid eyes on single Syrian."

Once again the EU stumbles, falters, and ultimately fails. The culprit you ask. Why, so called "friendly fire" of course...laughs

Isn't he?
He is only completing the job started by Sourlozy: 2 hopeless presidents both in despair, both turning over the government of your country to Brussels.
.
No use blaming the Germans (they don't care much for your "EU" anyway.)
.
It was an inside job.
.
.
And you don't like it:)
.
.

OK have it your own way - the new Vichy but with Brussels as the occupying power.
.
Hoist by your own petard.
.
And you really don't like it, do you:)
.
Yet for some perverse reason you want to have your lads shunted around on fruitless overseas adventures on behalf of it.
.
That isn't very kind of you.
.
.
.
A - Ha - Ha - Ha - Ha - Ha !!!

Emmafinney or Sherryblack: “I want to ask Forlana about Poland's failure to help the victims of Rwanda genocide.”

......
Initially I want to mildly remind you that this is European blog and Rwanda’s tribal massacre happened in Africa and thus comment in African blog about Rwanda is more appropriate - of you go.

Take this advice with you; Africa is a bottomless pit that requires a massive educational program instead of wasting money on corrupted leaders’ Swiss bank accounts – always revealed after violent death.

Dear Seven,
please leave my good name out of this.
My comments are mine, emma's are emma's.
In this day and age of the internet, just click on my moniker and undeniable facts will be revealed and beamed to the WORLD.

Two possibilities one: a person behind this previously derogatory penname is fully rehabilitated or two: New owner is a sensible poster. Once the name is not on TE list anybody can use it. I am leaning towards the second possibility.

The strategy of Czech administration is to play "the good cop" by participating in protective, reconstruction, peace-keeping and training-providing mission, etc. Thus, it can help mediating conflicts or help allies in diplomatic services - for example, the Czech embassy was one of the last remaining in Syria and provided diplomatic services for EU and even USA citizens in Syria... That's why the government decided to send mission to protect local targets and train local army in Mali...
Bigger countries are expected to be all-rounders and are expected to participate in offensive missions which obviously some are not willing to do and rather prefer not to participate at all...

In response to your post below and on an entirely different matter (sub 3):

1. So, with Pedro and Sanmartinian, you are now of the opinion that the whole euro crisis is a big conspiracy brought upon the eurozone by "Wall Street" and the "City"?
And yet you contradict yourself by pointing out in your second-to-last post that the "incompatibilities" between euro zone member states used to be adressed without much pain by the exchange-rate mechanism, which caused less harm than the horrid mass unemployment we are witnessing throughout Southern Europe now – a mechanism which no longer exists, and for which there is no suitable substitute, as the inability of the euro zone's governments to come to terms with the crisis in 5 long years has amply demonstratred.

2. You may or may not agree with Junoir (I only do partically), but he's at least asking intelligent questions when very obviously the situation is going nowhere, instead of repeating platitudes ("the Southern Europeans will pull themselves up by their boot strings, even if this will involve a bit of suffering, hoho").
No need to call everybody being less optimistic/careless names ("racist"), as Pedro and Sanmartinian have had the habit of doing for a long time.

3. Because it fits in here, and in order to end that rather unpleasant episode once and for all: The constants insults of everybody disagreeing with him ("stupid", "paid blogger") are not what alienated me from the part-time resident of San Martinho do Porto.
I can handle the rumble and tumble of a healthy debate, and actually enjoy it (although it is bit funny to be called "stupid" on end when you are debating a topic which you have worked on academically and someone else clearly has not.)
Mr. SM crossed a line when he devulged first mine and then, more than a year later, someone else's privately entrusted contact information (he apparently went further in that second case).
There are things you just don't do if you want to be respected, however much you enjoy passing yourself of for a secret service old hand, and at some point actually irrespective of age. (My grandpa wouldn't do this. LOL)

No need to answer, btw. Don't risk your chess connections over this. Just make sure to never disagree with the wrong people. (But you are, apparently - smart move.)

Apart from measuring the French mood on less than a handful of French people, PP trots out the same old tired eyewash: scapegoating the USA etc. for a poorly conceived currency or blaming it for "exposing its weakness" (which makes the currency sound even more feeble), a currency the introduction of which even one of its mentors, Delors, is ashamed.
In his last para he still thinks in terms of the old “one-size-fits-all” and “all-Europe-in-bed-together-under one-roof” as if a genuine pan-European “solidarity” ever existed except in the minds of those paid to believe in it.
.
No wonder posters ask if he is a retired eurocrat. If so it looks as if he could do with a 'reality transfusion'.

“… except that the dislike of Germany implied in her posting is nowhere to be found in France. On the contrary, thoughtful French people admit that it is they who have got it wrong, not the Germans.”

That's right. I have been communicating with thoughtful French people during my four weeks in Provence on a daily basis and none of them are in the slightest hysterical or supra nationalistic as our French patient here. They do indeed realize that it is France that has to reform as it just cannot afford its present social agenda, admirable as it may be. I wished they could and am deeply impressed by the solidarity they are showing their less fortunate just as I am incensed that in Germany we could afford the French system yet are drifting more and more into capitalism US style, which is good for some, the 1%, but bad for the 99%.

In that respect I even welcome the impulses France is sending out and hope that with the election coming up somebody, and be it DIE LINKE, will hammer home this point BUT under the motto “Charity starts at home” and “home” is neither Athens nor Paris.

Mind you, thoughtful French are not asking or expecting any charity from the Germans, which would be the introduction of Eurobonds. They do believe, like most thoughtful Germans do, that this whole mess started with US snake oil being sold, lustily, through The City to unsuspecting European banks sparking this crisis and that it has nothing to do with either the EU or the Euro. They know that all this waffling on about incompatibility, which always existed and always will exist, is an attempt to detract from the real culprits and that the only remedy here are earnest reforms in the deficit countries, not spend more than they earn and if this means a reduction in their standard of living, so be it.

If Monieur Ollangd wants to become the champion of the European underclasses everywhere including Germany he should insist on a Financial Transaction Tax of not 0.1% or 0.001% but 1% to be channelled into social services. Take away from the 1% to the 99% and if Merkel does not have the balls to push this through maybe Monsieur Ollangd will find his theme to light up the European landscape with French revolutionary zest. Ah ca ira ...

Why do you incessantly abuse Marie? Marie Claude is merely a political zealot, a representative of the one percent that will sway the rest of her countrymen into the arms of the new strongman when the uncertainty produced by a faltering economy and political impotence has caused the masses to hesitate between absolutism and anarchy.

For you to denigrate this most quintessentially European of heroines merely marks you as one of those that lacks the proper European enthusiasm, one that seeks to enjoy his wealth in peace rather than devote all to the EU vision. For shame.

Then you commit this enormous bluffage:

'Mind you, thoughtful French are not asking or expecting any charity from the Germans, which would be the introduction of Eurobonds.'

It doesn't matter what 'thoughtful French' think, only what Draghi had for supper last night. OMT is coming, whether you like it or not. Thereby you Germans can, must and shall pay for your guilty consciences but most especially for the right to arbitrate the destiny of Europe which you currently enjoy; just as the Americans have run themselves into the ground with their gigantic defense budget all for the sake of controlling the world. Enjoy the repast.

And then you cause us to suffer this inanity:

'... this whole mess started with US snake oil being sold, lustily, through The City to unsuspecting European banks sparking this crisis ...'

Are you really going to try to sell that mess of rotten fish again? The 'unsuspecting' European banks, even as addled with coke and cognac and whores as they were, knew full well the implications of the MBS etc they were buying or else they were criminally negligent. Here's a news flash for you: THEY KNEW but they were making too much on commissions to care!

European banks are in this up to their eyebrows so kindly stop the carping.

And this charitable offering will remain among my most prized religious memories:

'... the only remedy here are earnest reforms in the deficit deficit coutries, not spend more than they earn and if this means a reduction in their standard of living, so be it.'

SO BE IT! But, in true Hollywood form, this nightmare has endless sequels and will visit Germany soon enough, along with Japan, France and the US. Then we will listen to you squeal, perhaps in some of your atrocious Italian or worse Greek, as you are hoisted on your own Wotanish petard. I will grimace when you do and go out to pick my beans. That will be more nourishing than the gold you have buried beneath your nasturtiums (I hacked into a UAV and spyed on you!).

Perhaps you can visit Spain next and describe the European ardor of that disintegrating nation.

A return to our sovereign currencies is the only viable solution. Default now, or forever hold your peace. To hell with these Bankers. This single currency was a monumental mistake. Even the donkey rides are overpriced. Internal deflation, starvation, and then what? A light at the end of the tunnel? No, my mistake, it's an oncoming train of course. Now, who wants to sell industrial machinery to China?

Merkel: Yes, yes, all in due time. Now sit down, and stop interrupting the adults talking business at the dinner table.

Samaras: Yes, but we had an economy before the Euro, and now...

Merkel: Not anymore you don't! It's been replaced by debt, and you will be loaned just enough to roll it over, and over, and over, ...until the Greeks lop off your head...laughs

Samaras: Ah yes, the Trojan Horse. I remember the story well.

Merkel: Wrong again Samaras. You and your elites were Germany's Trojan Horse. Don't your remember how eager you were to join the Euro: "Where do I sign, where do I sign!" You hardly even read the contract. Too late now Samaras...laughs

" I have been communicating with thoughtful French people during my four weeks in Provence on a daily basis and none of them are in the slightest hysterical or supra nationalistic as our French patient here"

yet you said they were your "friends" !

A question, do your "french friends" read your posts as "Pumpernickel" on the Brit medias? I'm sure that they would not be so compleasant with you afterword !

3 They do believe, like most thoughtful Germans do, that this whole mess started with US snake oil being sold, lustily"

I hardly read that in french medias nor I hear that from the French, they rather see that that the DM/euro the problem, and the EU with its silly directives .

Actually, it's Germany that pushes for the financial transaction taxes.

Hollande will not do your home work, start to pay your workers HONNESTLY first, and to equilibrate your trades with the EZ, like Lagarde is recommanding since quite a while now, and may-be we can start to envision some future for your EUrope, not that one that is dried like you are directing, like in the good ol times !

"Why do you incessantly abuse Marie?"-
"Marie Claude is merely a political zealot, a representative of the one percent that will sway the rest of her countrymen into the arms of the new strongman".

Now you're being naïve. Have you not understood by now that for a European, being a 'political zealot' and a 'strongman', in whose arms the populace will find salvation, is reprehensible behaviour which leads to 'extremism'. That is if practised by one's European neighbours.

If this is done in one's own country it is 'providing the leadership' that Europe desperately needs and which others should follow.

:lol:
do you know that Pumpidou only frequents smart French (that have a swimming-pool and a poultry), not the villans like we can meet in Orange, Arles... that are too "mediterranean" !
and though if he knew, these are the people that are colorful, that are human, that are alive, I found the difference when I went to Aix en Provence, a city for smart French, and though I found some German hippies there

Pumpidou seems actually a good guy, as long as you don't talk politics. I think he truly likes France from a way of life pov and he has a grain of humour.
However, in his greed he probably had his trunk full of nougat from Montélimar, lavender perfumes and boxes over boxes of Côtes du Rhône when he returned.
He should have stayed a few days longer in Avignon to declare himself Pump I, the rogue Pope. The moment for such an announcement would have been unique.

Junoir: "...being a 'political zealot' and a 'strongman'...is reprehensible behaviour... That is if practised by one's European neighbours. If this is done in one's own country it is 'providing the leadership' that Europe desperately needs and which others should follow."

Europe's divisiveness is clear enough, especially since the EU gained its fuller aspect.

I had already written the line you quote when I came across your remark to the same effect that change comes suddenly in France and its leaders are always surprised.

As I watch the sleepwalkers of the EZ and EU priesthood, I am struck by that same suggestion, not just for France either. Those among them most powerful seem to be the same ones most willing to wait for events to unfold. They allow the tangle of national politics to play havoc with the EU's larger goal of comity.

Perhaps this is because they have no mandate from their electorates to act on behalf of the striken institution.

Instead they choose to extemporize, as with Merkel letting Greece (and now Spain) burn rather than bringing the urgency of the issue to a national political decision; as with the electorateless Draghi intimating rather than acting, a bluff that will doubtless redound through the legends of the ages, with its inconclusive and ultimately pernicious result already unfolding; and as with Hollande, most striking of all with his aimless bumbling from one impasse to the next, always with the effrontery to indicate he is perfectly consistent.

Can the hat have an infinite number of rabbits? I doubt it.

For at bottom there is no constituency for the EU. The banking interests use its flag to hide their own thefts. And politicians of smaller nations use it to quell the legitimate fears for security. Meanwhile the larger nations use it as a talisman intimating enhanced national prestige. And all the while the largesse of EU funds grease the wheels for one and all.

Eventually larger fundamental forces will sweep the illusion away. The grandeur of the spectacle is indeed awe-inspiring in the sense of fearsome. And its conclusion not necessarily sanguine nor even particularly dramatic. But surely the means do not meet the ends and it will all come tumbling down, sooner rather than later.

They will not tolerate our fun posts. They love the earnest posters, the ones regurgitating the same drivel day, day out.

Are you already looking for two adjoining properties in Crete we can buy for an apple and an egg to retire in style, quoting Homer, sipping Rezina looking at the wine coloured sea, having viva visiting from time to time and LV with his spurs and monocle, make him tell us jokes.

"And as with Hollande, most striking of all with his aimless bumbling from one impasse to the next, always with the effrontery to indicate he is perfectly consistent."

His true consistence, is that he is a French, and a true patriot, he is learning the state job, I already wrote, mind Hollande's peasant cleverness, at the end, it's not those that loudly proclam to win (like Cameron did lately) that will be the real winners ! He has many tricks in his bag, how such a anonymous politican managed to nuke his "socialist" peers and win the mendate? He isn't making loud noises like Sarkozy, though step by step he is preparing the ground for the next EU conflict that the EU leaders will not be able to avoid, either it's one Europe, eithers it's the end of EUrope.

and deeply he isn't a "socialist", but more of the old french school of french patriots

He's hoarding physical gold! That's how much confidence he has in the Euro. He even throws his coins on the bed and rolls in his fortune. Horrible noise, the poor Mrs is awakened by the sound of clinking coins every morning. She has asked him repeatedly to stop, but to no avail. He pays her little mind. He's German you know, so of course he knows what's best for all of us.

We will drink Raki - Tsigoudia - to celebrate Greece's liberation! Similar to Grappa, but like the Greeks, rougher. And some home made wine too, wine that can peel the paint off a fender..laughs

I discovered I'm powered by the SUN Pumper. This you don't have enough of in Germany. I now worship the Sun God Apollo. Don't laugh, it's true I tell you! I ask, how did the Greeks survive the War years without food? The SUN was feeding them. Now, where to find what all Greeks need so badly in New York in the middle of winter presents a problem of course. So, off to Greece we go!

PS - Bring the gold. We will need to barter for chickens and eggs with something. Let me handle the negotiations though. We need young chickens..laughs

Of course I know what's good for France. I wish most French citizens did too.

In the days when people sent letters through the post, I used to write to Alain Duhamel, Catherine Nay, Franz Olivier Gisbert, all the Europe 1 and France Inter 'chroniqueurs' about the euro, even before it was introduced.

"They love the earnest posters, the ones regurgitating the same drivel day, day out".
Allow me to rephrase your message to Zorbas.
"Thank God I am NOT an 'earnest poster'. How could I be anyway since my brain is now addled by years of seeing my arguments demolished or overtaken by events? But what do I care? I shall retire to Crete where it is cold and dark in winter (but I haven't realised that yet), 'read Homer', and try to decide what bottle to open next. Ah! the wonders of belonging to Europe's 'informed' elite. Cutters will most certainly NOT be invited. He probably drinks his wine out of a saucer, like his tea.
'Earnest poster', me? Do me a favour. I tell you I shall be RETIRING, so what do I care for the millions of unemployed sods all over Europe that my pet project has created and which is destroying Europe's economy?
Why can't these 'earnest posters' relax like me and have a drink? What right do they have anyway coming here and talking about Hollande and Europe? What relevance does this have to an article about Hollande and Europe?

Mussolini was not yet 40 at the time of his march on Rome and those surrounding him were even younger

1)Achille Starace -the future secretary of the party was 33
2)Dino Grandi - the future minister of justice was 27.
3)Galeazzo Ciano - the future foreign minister claimed to have participated at the age of 19.

(The anthem of the fascists was "Giovinezza primavera di bellezza": "Youth, Spring of Beauty.")

The same was true with the Nazi movement.

In 1933 Adolf Hitler was in his forties, but his closest followers were all very young:

1) Joseph Goebbels was 36
2) Heinrich Himmler - head of the terror machine was 33
3) his deputy Reinhard Heydrich was 29
4) Adolf Eichmann - the engineer of the Holocaust a mere 27.

And there is no doubting that Germany's massive youth unemployment problem in the early '30s-a total of seven million Germans were out of work in 1932-contributed to their collective rise."

emmafinney Feb 16th, 22:43
.
Wherever there is socialism, national socialism/fascism is never far away. The “EU” is a socialist/social engineering project out of control.
.
Germany? There is not the rise in fascism in Germany that we see south of the Rhine and East of the Oder and all along the Danube, but an “EU” debt union would a good way to produce one.
The German constitution is probably the most strict in Europe on monitoring fascist groups, which the authorities pounce on at the slightest opportunity. Germany has jobs for now, but thanks to the “EU” who could say what can happen under a deluge of economic refugees from the EZ alone.
.
In the PFIIGS and the east, fascist groups are growing.
.
As wealthier northern Europeans are asked to surrender more sovereignty to a corrupt, wasteful and utterly incompetent “EU”, whose parasitical power-grabbing activities have already made themselves felt on previously healthy economies, it only needs unemployment to tip the balance there too.
.
Take even the impact of the current horse meat scandal in Europe. The root of this was not the individual supermarkets named and shamed, but Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 which transferred responsibility for food safety in the supply chain from each member state to the ”EU”. It set up the European Food Safety Agency resulting in the international uncontrolled supply chain in chaos that it was supposed to monitor, which is being exposed.
The national governments that had more effective food safety measures in place are no longer responsible for the safety of the food their citizens eat. In this area, as well as in so many other areas that impact on all citizens, “competences” are being handed over to a corrupt Brussels organisation, so untransparebt and unfit for purpose that has not had its accounts audited for 19 years. It is playing with fire on all fronts.
.
The “EU” is poisoning Europe, the tinder for catastrophe. “More EUrope” has produced ill-will in Europe at its highest level since 1945 with more to come, as it continues with its putsch at every level to dismantle the safety valves that the national democracies had provided.

So far (until the supply chain has been thoroughly investigated) the "EU" is quite happy to let the individual countries take the flak for its own incompetence, and be as uncooperative as possible in the inquiry.
.
It was behind the French adventure in Mali: the "EU" locked on to a lame duck president of a nation with some sort of an army to encourage his futile intervention in which he was bound to need help. Presto, other European nations get sucked in, thus creating an "EU armed force" (its sole aim), but only the spread of terrorism will result. Then let the French take the flak as it all goes pear-shaped, and look for a new useful idiot.

As the "EU" staggers from one crisis to the next, I would hate to think what armed distraction it will have to invent next (Syria?) to create an "EU armed force".

Hi Emma,
Good point. Starace for example is hardly ever studied, his name is so widely despised here. I think we Italians tend to forget he was so young in the beginning.
The Scottish/British historian of Italy Martin Clark made a good point in his books that the generation of '22 was another sort of "generation of '68" - a generation of young men who had fought the war and were aware of their demographic strength and determined to create their own "revolution".
We are a long from that today.
I had an argument with some university students yesterday. I told them it was disgusting that nowhere on our agenda this year or in past years was discussion on lowering the age to vote for our Senate from its current 25. I was told by a bright young girl of 23 years old, a prissy, disciplined student, that it was unwise to entrust under-25-year-olds with the vote, since they were not experienced enough to make these decisions.
In a rather rude and annoyed tone, I asked her why she thought anyone in Italy over the age of 25 had the necessary maturity to vote and then suggested in the same breath that, with that logic, we might as well push back even further the voting age.
Monti is aiming his campaign spots on "working for the future of Italy's young people". Somebody should tell him to start by cutting his own golden pension of 72,000 euros per month (over $90,000) which is strangling the future of all non-retired persons in our country.
Politics these days is a battle between Cronos and Zeus to see who will eat the other first.

I tend to think that when a comment is deleted because it offends someone, the writer has probably come a bit too close to uncomfortable truths.

I also think that the impossibility of discussing Vatican issues openly in our country and as an atheist is at the heart of why Italy is not a normal country and why its national government is perennially unreliable. An excellent reason to support pro-Ghibelline politics in a staunch fashion.

What we need is not so much to get "politics" out of our economy - we need to get "religion" out of our economy and government. Any vision for Europe of Francois Hollande or Angela Merkel or any other European leader will be flawed until this issue is addressed.

Yes, the future of the Euro is at stake here. The problem in 1992 and 1998 was not the entrance of Italy into the Euro nor the signature of our Republic's representatives to the Maastricht Treaty. The problem was that the real decision-makers on the other side of the Tiber River did not sign the Maastricht Treaty - and apparently have no desire to see the Civil State respect the Treaty's criteria.

This of course is also because they judge themselves incapable of commanding the EU in its present form, as opposed to the postwar period.

Very good job, Milovan, complimenti! :)
But you could have spared Benedict XVI that kiss of death: >allow me, as a
Ghibelline Atheist, to express my strong admiration for this German pope<.
You do know how to discredit the Vatican :))

----

Let me add that writing whatever one wants to convey without making the comment succeptible to deletion - i.e. without breaking the rules of the house- is a function of intelligence. Among your many deadly faults;) lack of the latter is not present, I think you just need to try a little bit harder :)

If you really want to rabbit on about such esoteric matters on a blog about your dysfucntional "EU" go ahead, but back in the real world I see your fine upstanding compatriots are doing a great job in enhancing their reputation (and that of the 'EU')

"The problem was that the real decision-makers on the other side of the Tiber River did not sign the Maastricht Treaty - and apparently have no desire to see the Civil State respect the Treaty's criteria."

Dear Joe,

this is an interesting point of view.

I did not put much effort into researching to position of the Catholic Church on EU integration.

Would you mind giving some examples?

So far, I was under the impression that the influence of the Catholic on government decisions in the EU was waning quite rapidly, both on national levels as well as EU level.

Tell it to Jan Grabowski. Your incessant simper might fade just a bit when you explain his research and upcoming book I cite in an above post. He has found that Polish peasants acted on their own initiative to expose Jews to the Nazi invaders.

This is completely out of character with your past representations (and my own past readings). I think before you beat up on Joe any more you explain this.

Hello Viva, welcome back. You may simply ask, without this trademark silliness. Jan Grabowski is one of the respected researchers who broke the false image of the genocides of WWII, when victims were called 'Poles' or 'other nationalities' and perpetrators were 'Hitlerian'. His and not just his works are numerous and well known. Not only some Polish peasants killed or reported the Jews to Germans, but some Polish city-dwellers tried to make money through blackmail of Jews or persons helping the Jews. It is estimated that after Germans killed the majority Jews of Poland, who were easy to identify and lived in concentrated areas (shtetl and big cities), still some 200 000 alive people remained - hidden away or on the run. While only 50 000 Jews survived German occupation. This gives a number of 150 000 Jewish citizens of Poland who managed to evade the primary phase of the genocide - there were some 3 000 000 Jews in Poland when Germans came - the first phase performed mainly by German special task forces through mass killings right in the places the victims inhabitated (I can recommend an excellent though deeply shocking book by Jonathan Littell here, entitled 'Les Bienveillantes', if you are not a great fan of strictly historical books) and to a lesser degree (quantitatively) in specially built death camps. This gives a shocking number of some 150 000 of people who were given away to Germans or killed by Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian peasants, citizens of former interwar Poland.
Now, may I ask how that relates to present unity of Europe? You must be really out of ammunition in your naive quest of undermining European unity (which you correctly assume is capable to beat the US supremacy as you see it) to recall WWII.
Finally, please believe me it is all much more complicated than you think and than I am able/willing to explain here. Please at last start reading something about European history besides your most recent readings of Tukidydes and Gibbon. You may like to start with 'Bloodlands' by Timothy Snider and 'Forgotten Holocaust' by Richard Lukas. You will be stunned.
-------
Please note that I haven't elaborated/retaliated, mentioned, asked, implored on explaining US's failure to help Jews of Europe and/or US anihilation of Indian population as a prognostic for the success of future unity of your homeland.

"US anihilation of Indian population."
The US census reports close to 6 million people of native Indian heritage in the USA today. Still you persist in parroting the propaganda of Europe's chattering classes like a brainwashed citizen of a dictatorship that the Indians have been wiped out.
This may fly in Europe but in the rest of the world which lives in a world of reality you would come across as a crass propagandist.
Also you want to compare events that spanned 4 centuries from 1492 - 19th century to the holocaust which spanned a mere 6 years?
Now you want to tell us about all the genocides & pogroms that happened in Europe and its colonies from 1492 - 19th century?
Comparing 4 centuries to 6 years may fly in Europe but not in the rest of world which only sees this as a desperate crass propaganda effort.
Obviously they don't teach critical thinking skills in your side of the Atlantic.

"You must be really out of ammunition in your naive quest of undermining European unity"

-

"Undermining"?
What European "unity" is there to be undermined?
You are on Planet Pumpidodo.
This has nothing to do with currency wars, but everything to do with the *illusion* of "unity", only adhered to by those PAID to "believe" in it, cynically.
Sold to you by the same people who brainwashed you that Lehmann undermined the "euro".

Leaveittoviva, I have taken you seriously - regardless past experience. I
made a mistake - hopefully for the last time - since your prefer to play
elsewhere your circus arena show as an inhabitant of Edwin Abbott Abbott's
two-dimensional 'Flatland'. Wish you a happy life there!

Apparently, the three fathers of European integration, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide De Gasperi and Robert Schuman were all members of Opus Dei. The three of them have been recently put up for beatification or whatever other title it is the Church wants to hand out.
Particularly in the case of Schuman, who was Luxembourg, one has to ask from what local political base he was attempting to govern France (none). Ditto for De Gasperi, who was from Italian-speaking Trent, and born a Hapsburg subject. Trent and the Upper Adige region is far too small to constitute a real power base for someone with national ambitions. These men were sponsored by the only powerful organisation left standing on the continent in 1945, the Vatican.
So, they were completely in favour of European integration, until the end of the Cold War.
The ten or twelve new members of 2004 created another problem. Only Poland and Slovakia represented power bases for the RCC - so they were not very much in favour.
Their lukewarm support for the Euro has evaporated over the last 10 years, as it has become clear that the wave of returning to Church in Central Europe was purely temporary, while western Europe has largely abandoned the Church.
The key moment was the failed European Constitution. The drafters refused to bend to the Church's demand to make a clear reference to the Christian roots of Europe. From that point on, (about 10 years ago) the Church has turned against "this" Europe. In fact they are one of the primary purveyors of the idea that "this" Europe is on the wrong path. "We need European integration, but this Europe of the bankers is the wrong version of it." That may sound like a wholly reasonable proposition, but the people saying it the loudest are closet religious fanatics who basically are looking for a new Cold War against Islam.

I think probably if the European Constitution had referenced Christianity it owuld have survived and we would not have the Euro-crisis, but the simple fact is that almost half of us in Europe have zero use for the idea that Church and State should work together. So, the Vatican is now at war with the EU from within. Basically, it is quite easy for them to stir up public opinion against bailing out Greece in Germany, stir up public opinion in Italy against the Euro. etc.

Hello Milovan and Sherry v.2.0:)
Your are of course correct that fathers of European integration were Christian. The problems I have with your reasoning arises later. First and most of all - I know no EU country which is against the separation of church and state. Second - against 'this' Europe is also Mr.Cameron and Mrs. Merkel. I don't think you could think they are Vatican's stooges as well. So - could you elaborate a bit, Milo? Also - are you serious when you say that the Eurozone crisis is connected with the leftists' anxiety to mention Christian roots of Europe and integration. Again - I am truly interested in the mechanism you see here.

Let me offer another take on why Adenauer/Schuman/de Gasperi were at the origin of European integration:

1) As prominent Catholics, they were simply part of an organization transcending national boundaries - a big plus at a time when whatever had existed of European cooperation had just broken down completely (its trans- or supra-national character is still one of the Roman Catholics Church's biggests assets - and I say that as a Lutheran Protestant who doesn't contemplate switching over).

2) All three politicians came from historical borderlands, regions shaped by more than one culture over centuries:
- Adenauer was from Cologne, the former Roman "capital of the north" and culturally (still) much closer to BeNeLux than to e. g. Berlin;
- Schuman was born in Luxemburg to a Lux/Ger/Fr family, was trained and practised as a lawyer in Germany and made a political career in France - all of which without hardly ever moving, mind you (he lived in Metz). The borders kept moving around him. Same for de Gasperi.

So, bottom line: who if not people with a trans-national or multi-national background should have kick-started European integration after the worst excesses of nationalism? I don't think they've been anybody's tool but acted out of conviction.

“I also think that the impossibility of discussing Vatican issues openly in our country and as an atheist is at the heart of why Italy is not a normal country and why its national government is perennially unreliable.”
.
What I think, the above negates all your fights and arguments defending Italy at the minor critique in your numerous posts. Now, all that preoccupation and energy defending “not a normal country” is normally abnormal. I also think that you oppose Vatican just because it’s there. Cheers Joe!

Of course you will never shed your Soviet indoctrination. You are fond of it, have assimilated it fully and it is as much a part of you as the church catechism.
The consequent involuntary and perhaps unconscious revulsion you feel toward the US is richly documented and really not at issue here. I regret having been the instrument revealing to you your own autonomic antipathy toward the US and having been moved to inflict some negative conditioning to disabuse you of it, but that is just what vivas do.
For you to be offended that someone would take you to task for it (and doing such a workmanlike job of it at that) is completely understandable and forgiveable.
For I can commiserate that you consider yourself privy to certain facts that cannot be obtained except through the facility of your experience or that of your wider community. But again I must reveal to you that that world is gone. This world today is made of windows. Sorry.
Just so you know I have read stacks and stacks of books on Europe. Ancient and modern. Still, I am not Erasmus, I have lots of holes in my learning.
Sorry. But the curious confidence you exude, a cultic amalgam of scientific learning, ideological conditioning, religious belief and nationalistic fervor, each with its own distinctive thread leading back to the same willful point, make you particularly easy to read.
There simply are no secrets anymore.
You are an attractive person. I forgive you the curse you have placed upon me, I wish you every good fortune.

For sure they also acted out of conviction - and being myself a border Italian I can certainly appreciate your line of argument here.
But there were many other worthy and even worthier individuals. Instead, these men, with no real political base of their own (vis-a-vis their own national populations) were able to command for a number of years. This they could never have done without the Vatican's support.
This means that it was basically the Roman Curia (in conjunction with the United States) that picked up the pieces in (western) Europe after the war. Which was a bit "unexpected" given that they had been the source of electoral support that brought both Benito in 1922 and Adolf in 1933 to power.
-----------
Anyway, not to be polemical about this, but I think that a large part of the current Euro-crisis is the absence of this particular Roman glue to European integration - which probably has a life of its own these days.

I defend Italian banks, our military (I have many friends among the military units stationed in our border territory), our cars, our family savings... and I find it necessary to puncture the negative stereotypes.

However, I cannot defend Roman governments. Our State is perennially weak thanks to the activities of that other state across the Tiber River, so for example, I very much believe we have to follow French leadership. Our country cannot be trusted with "leadership" (and BTW, Draghi is an individual, not a country).

Don't be sure Opus Dei and Goldilocks Sax are such rivals. Among other things, Opus Dei is committed to accepting that the Church is not for everyone and that it has in any case lost the masses of the former Christendom. Accordingly, they are mostly interested in "acquiring" patrician, monied converts.
We are returning to the Middle Ages. The Church sees itself as surrounded by a rising tide of Paganism (they are right - thankfully) and they are mostly concerned about keeping the monied classes and the aristocracy on their side.
Because they themselves could never actually work for a living, right?

To answer your question, I believe that none of the economic challenges before Europe or the periphery countries was ever beyond the power of Brussels to right over time. But from the beginning this crisis has been born against a backdrop of political incompetence and re-born nationalism. It has also had a nasty religious undertone for several years now.
The Church has not defended the European Union over the last 3-4 years - and this is different from their Euro-attitudes of 30-40 years ago.

No one can doubt that the EU integration has long since taken on a life of its own.

But who would not accept, given the parlous state of European relations after the war, that it would not be the 'universal' church and the rising hegemon that would combine to restore the unity of the continent?

For all your grievances against the church you give her credit for setting the continent back on the right path after the war. Same with the US. You love her and hate her at the same time. You can't help it. The war made Europe the daughter of its own child, America. And remember, 'Lafayette, we are here?'

Is there any other example in history of such an inversion? Constantinople came back and restored Rome for a brief period. What did that renewed relationship consist of? Do you see any parallels? Or am I full of it yet again?

But still sounds like triangle speaking to fellow squares, circles, rectangles. Triangle interested in just one trait - what all those figures have written on their surface 'I love USA' or 'I hate USA'. All the rest triangle says, comments on, reads about does not in fact interest it, by own account.

Unfortunately all triangle can see in his contented, even happy flatness is something like that

_______ or ______ or ____________

So he imagines the inscriptions, sticks to his imagination and then defends or gloats over his little flat arena: USA! USA!! USA!!!

He does not know, how could he! that some of the flat figures he sees and addressess in his presumption of being indeed a terribly smart triangle, are in fact spheres, cubes and cuboids.

Now, my smart triangle, you may go on analysing my pre-assumed Soviet indoctrination and catechism classes. I blush at the things you know about me.

Or better stick to your flat arena and keep off the more complicated methods of silly provocations, sowing disconcord and the like in the matters you don't have a slight, pale idea about. Not everything which works in chess, works in real life, you know.

>MilovanDjilas: The Church has not defended the European Union over the last 3-4 years - and this is different from their Euro-attitudes of 30-40 years ago.<
Could you please somehow connect it with your, atheist's, extra-RCC, pro-EU-man's praising of Benedict XVI's, please?
And how did Vatican manage to talk Cameron and Merkel into this great game against EU-as-you-wish-it-to-be and as it is in fact today? (With Tusk it is easy, he just got an order from the Pope :)

The UK was never part of the Vatican's manoeuvring (well, there was Tony Blair's secret conversion to Catholicism - but foreign policy is not 100% in the hands of the Prime Minister.) By the traditions of diplomacy, foreign policy is in the hands of the Head of State in almost every country.

In Germany the Christian Democratic Party is not necessarily run from the Vatican. But the Curia does have great power over the Christian Social Union in Bavaria, where a Lateran Treaty establishes the RCC as the official state religion. And, there is a lot more money in Bavaria than in the former eastern Germany.

My praise of Ratzinger is completely different. I respect his personal, modern choice, as well as his message that the Church needs to get out of the temporal world and back into the monasteries.
I don't care if the RCC preaches against divorce. That is their business.
But three years to get an uncontested divorce with no children in our country is ridiculous. In the case of children, or a contested divorce, that process can take up to 10 years. The situation has got so bad that most Italian women completely shun both marriage and children, seeing either as a legal trap. And not coincidentally, Italian men are marrying women from Central and Eastern Europe in large numbers exactly because of the legal rigidities imposed on our people (and from which foreign wives are exempt).

"For all your grievances against the church you give her credit for setting the continent back on the right path after the war."

I would have preferred a United States that built up Europe in its own republican and liberal, secular image after the war. Instead, American foreign policy lent its support to the Treaty of Westphalia's arrangement that gave the aristocracy the right to choose the official state religion for the people. Not a very American ideal, really. The heritage of that agreement was directly responsible for Europe's inability to face the Yugoslav Crisis in the 90's.

As to America:
Its foreign policy has been hijacked over the postwar period by its four-cornered alliance with religious powers around the world:
The Head of the Anglican Church (UK), Israel as Governor of the Holy Land, the Vatican with its imperial interests in Latin America and Saudi Arabia as governor of Muslim holy sites in Mecca and Medina.
All four of these powers originally represented values that were not consonant with the American Constitution (although Israel has arguably become more "American" than it was originally; on the other hand, the religious fanatics become more and more powerful there every year).
--------
Another example of such an inversion?
The Ancient Roman Empire and Greece.
---------
No, you are not full of it.
Constantine did not restore Rome. He lived his entire life as a Pagan Emperor, and accepted conversion only on his deathbed. His decision to ally the State with the Church was based upon daily politics. It was inevitably a bad decision that sucked the life-blood, the Civitas, out of the Empire, rendering its political decline inevitable. (And indeed, throwing Europe into the Dark Ages for centuries.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Compare that to what we Italians, the masters and professors of Constitutional Law in Europe for six centuries (1204-1795) taught, based upon the Justinian Code - the Corpus Juris Civilis:

"THE EMPEROR CAESAR, FLAVIUS, JUSTINIANUS, PIOUS, FORTUNATE, RENOWNED, CONQUERER AND TRIUMPHER, EVER AUGUSTUS, TO TRIBONIANUS HIS QUAESTOR: GREETING.
With the aid of God governing Our Empire which was delivered to Us by His Celestial Majesty, We carry on war successfully, We adorn peace and maintain the Constitution of the State, and have such confidence in the protection of Almighty God that We do not depend upon Our arms, or upon Our soldiers, or upon those who conduct Our Wars, or upon Our own genius, but We solely place Our reliance upon the providence of the Holy Trinity, from which are derived the elements of the entire world and their disposition throughout the globe."

That was not the version of Roman Law that governed the empire at the beginning or at its height around CE 120. That was the version compiled after the fall of Rome by Emperor Justinians's legal scribes in the mid-sixth century.

The US needs to stay faithful to its own Constitution, even if that document needs urgent updating. (A new Constitution is needed, that incorporates the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which were drafted and sponsored by Roosevelt's men, not the Soviets. That document was the codification of the New Deal and America's greatest contribution to Democracy. Completely forgotten in the US.)
What the religious forces of the Republican Party really want is to return to a somewhat updated version of the old Justinian formula, uniting Faith and State.

I think the Justinian formula just about encapsulates my personal vision for the US. But I am realist enough to be satisfied with the existing order. Problem is, there is a movement to sweep away the Constitution and replace it with 'modern' ideas. Obama and his minions are carefully concealed at the forefront of this movement.

A lot those 'modern' ideas though would travel under the guise of 'human rights'. Sorry, but I see human behavior as something of a constant and don't think anything new has been invented since the stories of Genesis were being enacted.

As one example, women's rights. I have many women in my family and I want the best for them. But if the legitimization of extramarital procreation is someone's idea of 'women's rights', they are sadly oblivious or maliciously indifferent to the consequences of that behavior on the individual and society and how it is making women slaves, miserable and poor. And making children half-orphans.

It is also making imps and boys of our men.

Experience teaches that societies disintegrate when general individual behavior becomes aberrant. Again, no need to spell that out. Sorry to have to resort to morality (which as you know derives from a consideration of man to man based on the relationship of man to God). That is the stuff all enduring societies are made of. We're not talking about a nightclub where you can do 'whatever'. We are talking about an environment that allows us to transmit culture through generations.

For my money the Democrats have lost their collective sanity and are destroying this nation, aided and abetted by the Republicans. Sadly, we have no third way. The devil has us by the throat.

Really, would you have liked to see the US step in after the war and impose our ideals on Europe? The fact that we didn't should dispel some of your misconceptions about us. We go in, break stuff and kill people, then rebuild and withdraw. We are not conquerors or imperialists no matter what anyone may say. We are republicans that believe in representative democracy. For now.

Yes, I have a friend (actually her sister) in the US who was unable to find a man to marry her and resorted to in vitro fertilisation. Can't say I am particularly in favour of the idea as two parents are definitely better than one. And, I don't think it is entirely legal here, because I know of no such cases. I just don't think it's necessary to bring religion into it the equation. And, the majority of progressives are in favour of gay "marriages" (but in Italy we argued that it was counter-productive to use the religiously-loaded term "marriages" and are pushing for "civil unions") yet we are mostly against allowing children to be adopted by such unions. (Although, possibly I am missing more recent polls on that score).
Individual behaviour requires balance, ethics and discipline to avoid the breakdown of society - not god. I would recommend the writings of the Pagan Emperor Marcus Aurelius on this score.

Finally, regarding the evolution human rights (which hardly existed unil the post-WWII period), there is a great body of literature. We have Antonio Cassese's manual, but I do not know if it has been translated into English.

Call it Socialism or what you will- it was why Roosevelt dragged an unwilling America into the war against the Nazis. Roosevelt's ideas were codified and incorporated into the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which have become the basis for the new Constitutions of many states since the end of the Cold War. Roosevelt's legacy lives on around the world - but not in his own home country, where the neo-Fascist Right has suppressed and subverted that message.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3NTUNQzr3k

Hi there Milovan!
Thanks for your anwswer. Not that is terribly important but there's still kind of discrepancy in your stance. You say that the Church has not defended the European Union over the last 3-4 years - and this is different from their Euro-attitudes of 30-40 years ago. Ie. you complain that Church is no longer as openly pro-EU as it used to be. Yet, you PRAISE Benedict XVI including his abdication. This sounds a bit as if your approval of the Pope is connected with an expectancy that the next one would be again more outward, staunch in his pro-EU stance. In fact you critisize Pope Benedict XVI.

As to divorce/marriage. I really see no connection here, B16 and JP2 are/were identically conservative.
Also, it seems that Italian situation is a little more complicated than you present, am I right?
The most recent situation regarding marriage with non-Italians is depicted here

"A northern union is a stupid idea and short-sighted" (Pumpernickel, 14/2 at 6.09)

Well, in the 'stupidity and short-sightedness league', the creation of a "European" common currency which includes an island off the African coast and another one which is in Asia (both EZ members) is pretty hard to beat.

The official EU version of the euro crisis is that the USA is to blame for it - Lehmann bros. Scapegoating is the order of the day, aided and abetted by a generally pro-EU media in the continent.
After scanning these blogs, I believe this idiotic view has some adherents in the Economist fora.

Well Scarlett, out they come, some minor Brussels pre-programmed scapegoating bots right on cue.
The bot yield is unimpressive so far: mere minnows, feederbots in fact.
Wait for the bloater bots to emerge:)

Malta?
The bots could do with some geography lessons among others. It must have escaped your all-embracing "knowing better" that that e.g. a group of barren volcanic rocks off the coast of Africa known as the Canary Islands is in the EZ.

When I tried to reply to your posting of this morning, I was told it had been removed. Here it is now.

“ would, in the end, land France in the same predicament they were in before the Euro was introduced”

And what ‘predicament’ was France in before it joined the €? I would really like to know. I remember France in the 90s as socially more cohesive, with lower unemployment and an industry that was not slowly being destroyed. For example the Peugeot-Citroen factory at Aulnay-sous-Bois announced yesterday it was going to close, another victim of € membership. This is the price we have to pay for sharing a currency, which, remember, Draghi said he would do ANYTHING to save.

“A downward spiral which would be leading France on the pass of dissipation whilst watching Germany next door, despite an increasing power of their DM going from strength to strength, like in the late 80s”.

This ‘going from strength to strength’ is happening anyway. There is no DM of course, but the façade of sharing a currency with France doesn’t hide the growing imbalance between the two economies.

“the French, when the chips are down, will come to the conclusion that they are better off as part of a Eurozone”,

“When the chips are down”, they will come to precisely the opposite conclusion. I told you this at least two years ago. I know you would love it to happen, but there is no way the French can continue to share a currency with Germany. The longer it goes on, the more damage.

The editorial in today's "Figaro" says 'Bienvenue au Club Med" following the announcement that France will be unable to meet the 3% target laid down in the Budget and Stability Pact. This was known even before the Pact was rushed through the Assemblée with indecent haste.

There are now TWO euro-zones each with its own incompatible economic culture, and the sooner they go their separate ways the better for everyone.

Good points Junior.
.
I too wonder why poster pumpernickel desperately attempts to keep the French on board the euro train, because he must know that this does not reflect German thinking or sentiments in France.
.
Look at the way the Germans are reasoning, all this "the Germans are losing patience with the French", and vice-versa. France and Germany sharing a currency has proven to be poison for franco-german relations, and deadly poison for the French economy, as you mention, and Marie Claude keeps mentioning.
.
Germanambassador’s citation of the respected and influential die Welt reflects German thinking as I know it: that Brussels-Europe “is no longer financeable”, that a debt union with the states that have an “interest” in Brussels is not imaginable.

Besides, this nowadays german policy ain't what wanted Bismarck, who cared more for the german workers. Germany will get civil unrests, too, and I expect theat they will not make into gentlemen subtle catfightings, violence will be de rigueur

"the Germans are losing patience with the French"
by way of illustration the word I hear in Germany in conjunction with France most frequently is "Schmarotzer" - not a pretty word, meaning "freeloaders".
.
All rather embarrassing, this "EU", eh?

Le Figaro fares for UMP, apart the Mali campain it never found anything positive in Hollande governmenT. The Figaro represents those that want that France become a Germany satellit, funnily like those entrepreneurs prior WW2 too

Indeed the german currency, the euro disguised as a lower DM isn't good for our economy

France has a few little problems with its economy:)
Amusing to see how they are trying to tackle their little economic crisis.
Anyway they have still enough money to order 5 new air-craft- carriers and thousands of new jet-fighters because FRance wants always stay prepared for their next war against Germany.
Germany will stay the arch-enemy for France forever and their massive concentrations of their aggressive troops at the German border are a very clear sign against Germany as well as Mali was only a demonstration of the military capabilities of France towards a disarmed Germany.
France is the biggest threat and danger for peace in Europe since ever.
An occupation of Germany as it has been usual so often by the French might be the solution for French politics.
Germany has more than enough reasons to fear the aggressive French war-machine.

Sorry ma comment was moderated out. Here it is again minus the referene to the three Nervtöters:

Having just spent four weeks in France, Provence, and having had the
opportunity to discuss Europe's situation with my French friends there, I am aware that some, perhaps most of the French would rather go back to their Franc, as they feel that the Euro is a straight jacket not giving them enough of the flexibility of old, when they could devalue their currency to gain advantages over their rivals in their Export markets.

The few of my French friends who are better informed, however, and definitely in a minority, realize that going back to the Franc would, in the end, land France in the same predicament they were in before the Euro was introduced: Having to watch a strong DM becoming the currency of convenience in Europe to the detriment of the Franc, Lira and what have you. Short term, stop gap solutions. A downward spiral which would be leading France on the pass of dissipation whilst watching Germany next door, despite an increasing power of their DM going from strength to strength, like in the late 80s. These matters are being discussed in France and it is my impression that the French, when the chips are down, will come to the conclusion that they are better off as part of a Eurozone, warts and all.

The majority of Germans may, similarly to the French, be hankering for their Deutschmark yet thanks to Merkel, who is very popular, are easier persuaded that the Euro, in the long term, is good for us and Europe and that it is in our best interest to see that other European countries manage to get out of their depression. Perhaps we need to allow for more QE and a higher inflation to achieve this because we, unlike some, CAN afford to do so. In any case, with the USA going in the right direction, thanks to Obama, having Europe again on their radar I can see a lot of green shoots today where only a few months ago I was in despair.

The French are selfsih, yes. We are used to it and use it against them, as they also have no patience, which is their downfall. Everything has to happen instantly for our Gallic friends. It is a bit like the hare and the hedgehog game, where the better organized hedgehogs always are preparing for the next hare move before the hare starts running. This said, we love our hares and will look after them. Some, however, like our residet Joan of Arc will be put on a spit and roasted slwoly with chestnuts inside :-)

Sorry to butt in here Junoir, but this bizarre insistance should be noted:
“I am aware that some, perhaps most of the French would rather go back to their Franc, as they feel that the Euro is a “straight” jacket … The few of my French friends who are better informed, however, and definitely in a minority… “
.
Not only does this show an utter inability to grasp the value of democracy and his contempt for it, but "the few of my French friends who are better informed" - BY WHOM?
.
Since the poster himself has proven repeatedly to have no clue about economics, there are no prizes for guessing what programs this, um, sort of "knowing better" that afflicts the continent.

The French are not selfish, unlike the Germans, they care for people, didn't they bring you the Human right constitution 2 centuries ago, that you used for subjugating first the german lands and then the european countries, the French also are doing the humanitarian job everywhere on the planet, 'Docteurs sans frontières', and care for freeing oppressed populations from tyranics religious, without counting money, the French are embedded with the furture of humanity, while you want them becoming your clients.
You are showing us selfishness, you get rid of your elders when they can't serve your economical system, I'm waiting for a final solution for them in a soon future, as your society always follows its logic, get rid of the unusefulness !
You aren't people that makes dreams but nightmares

This myth that Europhiles are 'better informed' than Eurosceptics has always been just that - a myth.

On the contrary, Eurosceptics, by their very nature, have been more enquiring about the whole question of 'Europe' and what it means for all of us. They have gone against the pro-Euro propaganda of their own countries, including the UK, and have thought things through for theemselves, with the result that they are better informed.

On the other hand, most Europhiles in my experience are lazy thinkers, easily attracted by facile slogans that characterise Euro-think. They have been told that 'Europe is good' and have just accepted it without question.

Although I agree with your general line (I could compare that to Milovan, truly best specialist on Vatican :) I have to say that the last sentence is not true and in fact quite peculiar in your mouth. It suggests that anyone who thinks is an eurosceptic. While the truth is that people simply think differently. The boundaries don't l between islanders/continentals, believers/atheists, Catholics/Protestants, europhiles/sceptics, us/them, they are between wise ppl and the rest. There are wise, experienced ppl on both sides of every barricade. Well, almost. I hope it does make sense to you.

Forever devaluing in order to gain competitiveness. This would make sense, if agriculture would be say more than 10% of its GDP and not less than 2%. Industry is 18.3%. The remainder services where in tourism they are competing mainly with other EZ countries. Should they withdraw to gain in this area they may lose when people from other EZ countries seeking the latin flavour may wish to stick to Euro using destinations like Italy and Spain?

In car manufacturing I believe that France just like Germany prefers a strong currency to pay for energy, raw materials, components etc.when labour accounts for less than 20% of the unit cost, no?

I maintain that the Euro is good for France as it is good for Germany and the rest. If the French seek the easy way out and leave the Euro thus bringing the whole structure down it would be a tragedy for Europe for geopoloitical reasons mainly. If the NAFTA – EU deal can be negotiated on eye level with the US it is due to the fact that the EU can use its muscle as the biggest trading block whilst individual countries would have no clout, as I have veen saying ad nauseam. When the chips are down the French will vote for the Euro, no matter what the present impression.

"Calculations by analysts at Morgan Stanley, published this week, put the fair value of the euro for Germany, if it were standing alone, at $1.53. For France, it is $1.23. The euro is significantly undervalued for the German economy and overvalued for the French"

Since Germany is rigid on the euro value, our surviving must to get out of this german coercition

"in car manufacturing I believe that France just like Germany prefers a strong currency to pay for energy, raw materials, components etc.when labour accounts for less than 20% of the unit cost, no?"

blah blah blah, your cars are manufactured for 90% in low cost labour forces countries, raw materials? what are they? steel made by Mittal foundries, again it's not the material (with cheap coal and iron that come from the US and Australia) that is expensive, it's to make it, hence the labour force cost !

The rest of the items are manufactured in Asia.

Energy, in Germany of course it's expensive since it depends on subidiarised wind and sun pannels, nuclear energy in France is cheaper !

your country don't even buy EZ countries products, but from eastern republics's because the EZ German euro is too expensive for the Germans to buy EZ merchandises, especially since they got their wages dumped, so that the german corporations can be competitive with the french's the italian's, hey beggar thy neighbour policy anyone?

"Should they withdraw to gain in this area they may lose when people from other EZ countries seeking the latin flavour may wish to stick to Euro using destinations like Italy and Spain?"

completely silly ! the tourists would rather prefer to go in a country where the currency is affordable, €1 =$1 would be acceptable for the large majority of the planet visitors !

you maintain what is more benefitful for Germany, keeping the euro means that our economy keeps on slowing down, then la Merkin will send her troika of gauleiters in Paris ! I tell you when this day will come, expect that these people will be slaughtered !

did you ask yourself why no politician in France wants to remake a referendum? it's because the "no" would win with a much larger majority than in 2005, expect a 7O% !

It's not with contempting people like yourself that we can make a union

"It suggests that anyone who thinks is an eurosceptic. While the truth is that people simply think differently".

Of course they think differently, but my point was that eurosceptics, as a reviled minority for so long on the defensive, have had to think longer and harder about the EU in order to justify themselves than those who have just followed their governments' pro EU policies.

This is a GENERALISATION, of course, which I make simply to point out that being "well informed" is by no means a Europhile preregative, as so many would have us believe.

I agree about your stereotyping (you are Polish, therefore you must be Catholic..etc)

BTW did you notice Joe's "bet" for the next Pope, the Patriarch of Genoa? Now why would an Italian from Genoa 'bet' on another Italian from Genoa to be Pope?

As you say, Europe is an endless soccer match and ongoing oneupmanship.

MC has got it basically right in her own inimitable way, except that the dislike of Germany implied in her posting is nowhere to be found in France. On the contrary, thoughtful French people admit that it is they who have got it wrong, not the Germans.

For example, a couple of days ago in connection with the announced closure of the Peugeot plant at Aulnay-sous-Bois, a TV discussion panel made an historical comparison between Peugeot and VW which pointed to Peugeot’s strategic errors (in concentrating on the French market, for example) in recent years, compared to VX's excellent track record.

There is no question among the main parties in France of 'leaving the €'. That's definitely not on the cards. But something will have to be done about the glaring incompatibility between the French and German economies.

Hildegarde the favorite in reply to pumpernickel _ Feb 16th, 08:41
.
I agree with all you say there, but never forget, it is your pro-"EU" political clique that has brought the "troika of gauleiters into Paris", not Merkel.
.
So why do you not devote your argumenatative spirit to put the case for France to leave the € (and therefore the EU)? Germany is irrelevant.
.
It is the overwheening one-size-fits-all/ever-closer-union dictatorship and most of all its French collaborators, that you should be attacking.
.
This "EU" is not making the economies of the European landmass stronger; it is the source of acute division, deterioriation of standards of living, that has aggravated relations between the peoples of it.

"As you say, Europe is an endless soccer match and ongoing oneupmanship."

- As is this blog (which makes it fascinating and nauseating at the same time;-)). In my opinion, the fact that this is a public space (at least in theory) figures large in how and what some people write.
It's not just MC defending Hollande now that he is president while she reviled him before. The same goes for nearly all bloggers: they sometimes defend the most outlandish positions here which they wouldn't hesitate to dismiss as complete rubbish at home, just because they feel the urge to protect their tribe.

@ MC/Hildegard WTF
.
Since the French are such perfect human beings, as you correctly state, you'll understand that such flawlessness of character should be shared with your neighbors.
.
Here's my proposal: To make the dirty rest us a bit more like the divine French, give
.
- French Flanders to BELGIUM
- Alsace-Lorraine to GERMANY
- Corsica, Nice and Savoy to ITALY
- Perpignan to SPAIN/CATALONIA
- the fomer Guyenne to the UK
.
That should distribute French greatness a bit more evenly around the region.
.
If you are against such a collective approach, I suggest all male citizens of the above-named countries be entitled to a French mistress. (You'll be attributed Pumpernickel LOL).
.
I'd personally prefer the individual approach, even if I admit it involves a bit of gambling.
.
Cheerio.

MC in particular should be going after the "EU" and the members of her "tribe" that collude with it. Then we wouldn't have to listen to her ceaseless tirades against Germans (red herring, wrong tree as I keep having to repeat.)

That is a very weak and petulant reply Marie:
you are obsessed with NATIONS, whereas I am concerned about an organisation that is poisoning relations between them. I do tend to "go after" that quite a bit, in case you hadn't noticed:)
.
No matter, I will continue to do so since the penny seems to be dropping at last - in *most other* quarters:)

"no I'm on a thread on France (and mostly on threads that treat french policies) where France is RARELY not ridiculised".
.
Not really, the thread is not on France per se, but on the position that the existence of the "EU" has put Hollande in. He can do what he likes with France, but the existence of the one-size-fits-all "EU" does not tolerate this. So blame the "EU"!
Alas, I think you just like argument for its own sake - but at least step back and consider this point on the "EU" instead of nations.
.
I am sure that Britain is constantly pilloried in the eurobot press, which accounts for a lot of continental Europe still, although it is on the decline (hint - in concert with the credibility of the "EU"). But that never meant that I hated continentals etc. - their eurobot opportunist, manipulating politicians, yes (same democratic disconnect in Britain - but we are dealing with it): it was always an inside job - the eurobot politician serving Brussels and not their national constituents, as Hollande will find out soon enough.
.
Unlike you I would not become an insomniac about it (Brit bashing),(a) because the hostility came from quarters that had been friendly until the "EU" came into existence (b) it serves as a further reminder that this deformed organisation that has poisoned Europe, is increasingly hungry for scapegoats in its existential desperation (e.g. press censorship).
I am happy about this - because the "EU" inevitably makes itself look more ridiculous and unpopular with its wild attempts to save itself.

"Lloyd George predicted that with the harsh terms demanded by France (and France got her way because she had paid the heaviest price) Germany would seek revenge 'within 25 years'."

again, I am questioning your way of orientating facts:

"he British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George commented that:
The English public like the French public, thinks the Germans must above all acknowledge their obligation to compensate us for all the consequences of their aggression. When this is done we come to the question of Germany's capacity to pay; we all think she will be unable to pay more than this document requires of her"

BUT, it's why Marechal Foch (for not the same reason, hey, it's France that already had 2 wars on her territory, it's France that paid the hardest prices, , I'm reminding you that we paid a heavy ransom in 1870, that french territory, industry and farming was destroyed in WW1...) that said that the Versailles treaty was not the solution, but a truce for 20 years, he'd preferred to carry on the war onto the german territory, so that the Germans felt DEFEATED, hence not questionning the "war reparations" cf Versailles Treaty article 231 of the Versailles treaty. And though Germany, if she had wanted to pay something she could, her Economy was intact, her gold reserve was intact...

You are telling us, elsewhere in your posts, that France shouldn't comply to Germany, even your compatriot, Birtnick, sees that as a Vichy cooperation, I am questionning your fairness there, is it again your double thinking ala Lloyd? -Now that Germany isn't a potential threat to Britain, let's start doing what we do better with her : businesses , of course, if Germany must pay war reparations to France, she will not have the means to buy "made in Britain", also Britain had gained what she wanted at least, she asserted her position in ME, Iran, Irak, Palestine...

Though, Britain also had to repay loans to the American banks for paying her war effort, that that the german reparations were ment to pay back too, and in the Briths mind, it was OK that France remained impoverished (economy ruined), at least that was a concurrent not dangerous for the british trades, now that Germany's might was down !

French historians agree that the treaty conditions imposed on Germany at Versailles rendered her incapable of paying. And indeed Germany defaulted, resulting in the French occupation of the Ruhr and financial crisis in Europe. LG believed in a more lenient attitude that would enable Germany to get back on its feet and YES, start trading again. Anything wrong with that?

And don't forget Woodrow Wilson's stance. He thought Versailles was a shame, believing that France and Britain were also to blame, with the result that the US never joined the League of Nations. So between WW's view and that of Clémenceau how about a happy medium?

So who is lacking 'fairness' and objectivity , Marie?

I KNOW that France paid the heaviest price in WW1. Nobody is disputing that. The result of French WW1 suffering was that at Versailles they were incapable of thinking rationally.

This is a different matter entirely, nothing to do with Versailles. TODAY I think that the sooner F and G stop sharing the same currency then the sooner France will be able to recover her sovereignty and get the economy growing again. In fact I have been saying that for longer than you, even before Germany's position in Europe became so predominant. I'm still surprised at how little debate this creates in France.

I don't see wnat Iraq, Iran and Palestine have to do with it.

"it was OK that France remained impoverished (economy ruined), at least that was a concurrent not dangerous".

I never said that. Britain paid back WW2 loans to the US at a REASONABLE rate and over a very long period of time. France demanded reparations from Germany that ruined it.

"Who needs friends when we have friends like you?".

Well, Marie, if you had ONCE, in all the time you've been blogging, ever acknowledged Britain as a worthwhile ally (for 200 years) or said the slightest thing positive about the country, or even told us if you have visited it, then you might be able to answer the question yourself.

"French historians agree that the treaty conditions imposed on Germany at Versailles rendered her incapable of paying"

which ones, oh yes the consensual's imposed by the WW2 "winners" !

and though Margaret MacMillan, who is a British historian (whose father attended the Versailles treaty summit) doesn't really shares this common accepted view.

"And don't forget Woodrow Wilson's stance. He thought Versailles was a shame, believing that France and Britain were also to blame, with the result that the US never joined the League of Nations. So between WW's view and that of Clémenceau how about a happy medium?"

LMAO, difficult to believe since the Versailles treaty articles were written by him, The Wilson US was at the origin of the League of Nations, but it's the US new elected republican congress that refused to sign the Versailles treaty, you know little of the antagonism beween Republicans and Democrats in the US (though the actualities should give you a idea, see how the republican congress is making hard and or refutes any Obama decision)

Clemenceau only stated that as soon as the war was over that the Brits weren't France allies anymore.

"I KNOW that France paid the heaviest price in WW1. Nobody is disputing that. The result of French WW1 suffering was that at Versailles they were incapable of thinking rationally"

what does that mean? that France should sit down on her griefs and collaborate with Germany again, klike if nothing had happened ? The truth is that France was concerned by a German strengh recovering, each time the Germans felt strong it was at the French expenses, and making sure that Germany would remain weak was part of the medecine !

"Well, Marie, if you had ONCE, in all the time you've been blogging, ever acknowledged Britain as a worthwhile ally (for 200 years) or said the slightest thing positive about the country, or even told us if you have visited it, then you might be able to answer the question yourself."

Oh yes, I know Britain, and the people with whom I could talk were foreigners, the British avoiding to melt with these foreign villans.

hmm, Britain our allie since 200 years, say rather that she wasn't at war with France since that long, you were our allies when definitly you couldn't avoid it (ie WW2 WW2)

But our true allies in the anglo-saxon plebe, were and remain the Americans

If you refuse here to acknowledge that Britain was France's ally in WW1 and Free France's ally in WW2, then I consider you intellectually dishonest.

What's more, I've never met anyone in France who believes such a thing.

The Americans entered neither WW1 nor WW2 to help France. They went to war against Germany in WW1 for the reasons we know and against Japan and Germany in WW2. In neither case was France a consideration.

"The Americans entered neither WW1 nor WW2 to help France. They went to war against Germany in WW1 for the reasons we know and against Japan and Germany in WW2. In neither case was France a consideration."

no, Roosevelt had deep concern when France was defeated in 1940, at leat it's what is transcripted from his "cabinet" discussions

and in 1918, it's not for nothing that the US troops came singing "Lafayette nous voilà"

difficult to admit for a Brit, I guess, that not being considered as the center of the US alone worries, is just can't be imaginable !

No, in the eternal rivalry with Venice, the Genoese boast of their possesion of the bones of St. John the Baptist, as against those of St. Mark the Evangelist held in the Most Serene City, but they cannot boast the title of Patriarch - mostly because,

a) most of our "empire" was made up of non-Catholic populations in the Black Sea and Aegean... and,
b) we lost our empire shortly after 1453.

The Latin Church recognises five Patriarchates: Rome, Lisbon, the East Indies (Goa), Jerusalem and Venice.
The Orthodox Church encompasses nine or ten Patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Georgia (no, not Atlanta), Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria. I hear there is also a Patriarch in the Baltic Republics.

There is also the question of a half-dozen Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite who recognise the authority of the Roman Pope: Syria, Armenia, the Maronites (Lebanon), the Chaldeans (Iraq), the Copts of Alexandria, and the Melchites.

The question is important, because in 2007 a meeting was held in Ravenna, in which Ratzinger's representative agreed that Papal Infallibility might be renounced in favour of a council of Eastern and Western Patriarchs in exchange for union between Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
An interesting idea.

In any case I would not care about a Genoese Pope - in fact, since Liguria is the bastion of Ghibelline Italy, the nomination of such a Pope is an assault on our region from Guelph forces.
But Ratzinger has nominated Genoese bishops and cardinals to all the important positions in the Vatican. This man has a plan...

Of course he did. So did the whole world. So why did he wait 18 months to enter the war (in response to an attack by Japan and NOT to help France) if he was so concerned for his 'French allies'?

The reason is that France and the US were not allies in 1940. Simple.

Why did the Americans wait till 1917 to sing "Lafayette nous voilà"?

Same reason. There was no alliance between the two countries and the US entered the war against Germany, not necessarily to help France, (though if they managed to do this 'dans la foulée', so much the better).

The only alliance France has had with the US is during the US War of Independence.

Britain's alliance with France dates from the Crimea. There was the 'Entente Cordiale' and the WW1 and WW2 alliances.

" So why did he wait 18 months to enter the war (in response to an attack by Japan and NOT to help France) if he was so concerned for his 'French allies'?"

because the congress was "isolationist", that Roosevelt couldn't launch a war operation without its agreement, and though, a non declared war against the Nazis was on, when the American troops replaced the British's in Iceland, for controlling the sea lanes, and to nuke the german ships and ubots tailing their merchandises ships

And the US started to interven in northern Africa in december 1942 !

"the reason is that France and the US were not allies in 1940. Simple."

That's silly Britsh hubris !

The reason, was that they weren't ready to go at war so soon, because of the reason that I gave you above, and that their arms manufactures weren't ready !

"Same reason. There was no alliance between the two countries and the US entered the war against Germany, not necessarily to help France, (though if they managed to do this 'dans la foulée', so much the better)."

British hubris again,

It's Clemenceau, that lobied the americans since the beggining of the war (he was married to a american woman) for intervening,

The US were then divided, the german populations (numerous) of the US recommanded to not interven... though it's because trades were ruined that they finally jumped into the conflict, and if it wasn't for the French they could just have done it along the Brit troops at the Belgian border, or in the Ottoman empire, they didn't, but were fighting along the french troops, why?

"The only alliance France has had with the US is during the US War of Independence."

no, the only countries which didn't go at war against each others, were/are the US and France, there's a tacite entente for that !

Crimea was first a war wished by UK for defending its sea lanes, whereas the Dardanelles were threaten by Russia. UK dragged France into the conflict, whereas we were defending our allies the Turks, without France on your side, you had no chance to win the war, since the brit troops were unexperimented, that they got diahrreas because of the local food, they were almost all out of combat

ahahah

This was just a convenient allance for a specific war

You didn't came to help France in 187O, you were just happy that Germany could weaken France then.

And in 1914, if Belgium hadn't been invaded, you wouldn't have supported the western front, just that it was necessary for your country to have a good reason to attack the Turks, then german allies, in the mediterran sea, and in ME, we know that you were interested to get ressourceful territory there, that you couldn't get otherwise, but by a allies treaty, indeed Versailles was giving you this opportunity !

Each time UK can weaken France, it didn't miss a opportunity, and still today, what did try Cameron? what does he do in India? trying to nuke the Indian option for the french Rafale.

I heope he'll get the slap in the face for his arrogant bias by the Indians

""What ignorance of Europe and how difficult all understandings were with him! He believed you could do everything by formulas and his fourteen points. God himself was content with ten commandments. Wilson modestly inflicted fourteen points on us ... the fourteen commandments of the most empty theory!""

"Lloyd George, as far as Clemenceau was concerned, was more amusing but also more devious and untrustworthy. In the long and acrimonious negotiations over control of the Middle East, Clemenceau was driven into rages at Lloyd George's attempts to wriggle out of their agreements. The two men shared certain traits --- both had started out as radicals in politics, both were ruthlessly efficient --- but there were equally significant differences. Clemenceau was an intellectual, Lloyd George was not. Clemenceau was rational, Lloyd George intuitive. Clemenceau had the tastes and values of an eighteenth-century gentleman; Lloyd George was resolutely middle-class."

"France shouldn't comply to Germany, even your compatriot, Birtnick, sees that as a Vichy cooperation"
.
I did not say that: I said that ""France shouldn't comply to the EU" and its artificial currency.
.
You are obsessed with nations as we know and completely mad to blame Germany for the "troika of gauleiters" that visit Paris.
Your "EU" and its "euro" directs this ... but you love the "EU" ... so stop complaining here about your self-abuse, it passed its sell by date many moons ago and has just become tedious:)
.
Now you are calling on all other eurosheep to enlist in an "EU" army. Best of luck with that. MORE self-abuse.
.
a - hahaha - !!

Back to the topic which was your original claim that the US is and has been France's closest ally. Wrong of course since, as I said, there has never been an alliance between the two countries except during the US War of Independence, a truth that you dismiss as 'British hubris'. Now that is a DEVASTATING argument! I wish I understood what you meant.

Yes, there is one alliance between the US and France, NATO from which the French withdrew in 1966 to follow a policy of 'indépendence nationale' when France declared NEUTRALITY in th Cold War.

In fact France has only been an ally of the US from the founding of NATO till 1966, and then since 2007 when Sarko rejoined.

A few other points.

Clémenceau's lobbying for the US to enter the war had no efffect. The American entered for their own reasons. (Zimmermann, Lusitania...etc) France's fate was a minor consideration in a profoundly isolationist US.

'There has never been a war between the US and France'. True, but that does not make them allies.

'You didn't came to help France in 187O, you were just happy that Germany could weaken France then'.

Well if the Brits HAD intervened in 1870 you would be telling us today that they only did so because they feared Germany, the argument you use for Brit intervention in WW1. So with you, the Brits never get it right, though of course without them WW1 would have been lost for France.

"Hate" it's "la meilleure of the year, are you sure that you aren't "hysteric"?

only a Brit ould swear that the US is no France allie, but check what the Americans say, they ALL say that France is a allie, the fact is that you even don't know that the americans share the same casern for the marines and the legionnaires in Djibouti, that the americans (pilots, CIA, money)were "fighting" along the French in Indochine, that they are fighting in Africa (shared intelligence, Agents, experts troops) together, and not only for Mali, it's old as much from the Independance in our former colonies. Today they are adding planes, drones, troops each weak !
Of course it's not like a NATO treaty (in the meanwhile Nato countries aren't forced to help in whatever conflict), but a tacite alliance !

"In fact France has only been an ally of the US from the founding of NATO till 1966, and then since 2007 when Sarko rejoined."

LMAO, France and the US worked together since the independance war, they don't need a treaty of alliance .

We quarrel a lot, like a old couple, but we remain bound together.

"Clémenceau's lobbying for the US to enter the war had no efffect. The American entered for their own reasons. (Zimmermann, Lusitania...etc) France's fate was a minor consideration in a profoundly isolationist US.3

In your dream, like for WW2, the Congress needed a ostensible act of war for declaring war to Germany.

The american were flooding us with arms since the beginning, our plane ingeneers were working in the us on the manufacturing war planes...

"There has never been a war between the US and France'. True, but that does not make them allies."

Wouarf, british BS

"So with you, the Brits never get it right, though of course without them WW1 would have been lost for France."

The British never genuinely helped France, in WW1, you were going to loose your front on the Belgian border, it was when a general Commandement (Foch) for the Allies was decided in the beginning of 1918 that the fate of the war started to change, the Germans were loosing battles, and of course, the fct that the americans joined achievd to depress them.

"No allies, German occupation of France."

yes, but forced, because of our proximity, and that the Nazis were thretening your island through our harbours. If you have avoid it, you'd preferred to fight with the Germans against the soviets

"British policy in Europe intended that no country in Europe should become completely dominant. If Russia, France, Germany and Austria-Hungary worried about each other, then they would be less of a threat to Britain. By about 1907 it was becoming clear to Britain that the greatest potential threat to Britain was going to be Germany. The strong economy, large population and powerful armed forces of Germany seemed to be capable of dominating Europe. As a result, Britain began to support Russia and France. Britain joined the Triple Entente.

Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a "scrap of paper"."

As for all the rest, which you no doubt see as anti-French postings from me, which of course they are not, my objection is to YOU, never to France, and your twisted belief that France's British allies are 'des moins que rien' who have never done anything for France.

Yes, Ambassador, thank you for a pertinent referenced article.
.
Unfortunately I may not quote it as it is in German, but the unwritten subtext is clear:
.
"an exit of the UK would bring new dynamics and set an example for other EU members" to leave too:)

I am sorry but I could not find this article in English.
But it is a pleasure to see that even in Germany thee are meanwhile enough people who are accepting that any cooperation with the French will always end in the worst disasters.
Germany therefore should stop any relations with France because France is an aggressive military power that loves to play with the fire.
The so-called Franco-Geman relationship in fact never existed as it was nothing but an artificial creation against the will of a wide majority in both countries.
Germans would do much better regarding the French like the British do.
In fact the French are nothing but enemies of Germany.

Quite probably so, Mr Ambassador. We live in interesting times indeed.
.
And unfortunately their actions follow a dangerous precedent: remember how Mussolini’s ever-victorious armed might high-tailed it into Abyssinia bombing, plundering and genociding?
Well, the French too are having their adventure in Mali against no opposition to try out their super-duper jet bombers in another country also without an air force, army or air defences.
.
So perhaps this is why Mr Hollande’s hubris-filled unvanquished crack divisions are now mustering on your European borders since this adventure in Africa did not quite satisfy the “markets”.
.
But stung by the failure of their “euro” and thwarted plans for debt union, now these eurofascist hyenas are thirsting for blood and revenge until you pay up ?

All in agreement then: An Italian African from Sicily, whose father is a nonpracticing Muslim from Kenya. What's with the retirement though? I thought Popes were suppose to die on the job. Maybe he's fallen in love? Why not, our Priests are allowed to marry. I use to play cards with one...laughs

"It's gonna cost a fortune to replace all of those "dry platform" toilets...laughs"
-
It was reported that he even had an emergency one out on his "papal address balcony" (as well as in his white popemobile) until he realised he was being filmed making his "address" whilst perched upon it.

All low and behold the p-arting of the Papal Gown!
-
You must have played this game to keep the kids entertained:
.
Now then kiddies, repeat after me with your little fingers drawing your mouths as wide as you can -“the elephants went up to the top of the hill, ... and p-aaarted!”
.
Kept ‘em amused for days, eh:)

I think that something like 32 of the 50 or 60 European cardinals able to vote are Italian. Europeans make up at least half the total, from memory. Yet the current Pope is not Italian, nor was the previous one. So by implication, cardinals do in fact consider other factors besides nationality.

"I think that something like 32 of the 50 or 60 European cardinals able to vote are Italian. Europeans make up at least half the total, from memory...."
-
Representative of what a threatenlingly papist rabble produced the "European Union" without thinking of the others who worked on democracy, social reponsibility, and the modern age, to bring Europeans out of the ditch.
.

Thanks to those same regressivist left-footers other parts of the globe have surpassed Europeans in most spheres.

"I do hope that you are in perfect health when you are 85. Most (really?)commentators are elegant enough not to draw attention to physical infirmities."
-
Most of we mere mortals are not so b----y pretentious to think that we are "Pontiffs" to the Almighty. Any weirdo who puts himself up for that sort of job deserves everything they get.

I heard that the Pope’s resignation weakens Monti’s chances in the elections, though I’m not sure why.

Anyway, surely the whole thing is a stitch-up between Berlusconi and the Archbishop of Milan, Angelo Scola. After all, they’re both Milanese and approx the same age. They probably ran protection rackets and extorted money from their class-mates at school.

Silvio provides the funding to buy off the opposition to Angelo’s appointment as Pope. Goodbye to the idea of a Ghanaian or Brazilian pope. The Pope will be an Italian once again, as he should be.

Once in power, he then helps Silvio to obstruct and block the forthcoming government of the hated Bersani. (once a communist always a communist, even if you’re an ex-communist) Angelo is certainly a ‘Better Dead than Red’ merchant, and we know Silvio is. After all,
they belong to that generation.

The new government will be unable to function, causing fresh elections in a few months.

When John Paul II died J.Ratzinger was the obvious choice, not only because of his exceptional character and suitability but because he had been close to his predecessor for so long. That's how I remember it. However, you may have a point with the appointment of the Polish pope.
All the same, I would be very surprised if the Ghanaian or Brazilian was elected.
We'll see.

I could imagine that a Brazilian will be selected. It's one of the world's biggest Catholic communities and they are losing out rapidly against Evangelicals in recent years. Having a South American or Brazilian pope may delay or stop that trend.

After all, the Catholic church was the world's first truly global MNC, and knows that "growth markets" matter.

>J.Ratzinger was the obvious choice, not only because of his exceptional character and suitability but because he had been close to his predecessor for so long.<

And vice versa :) He has been close to his predecessor for so long BECAUSE of his exceptional character. He was JPII's theological bedrock, and trustworthy friend and ally (which present Pope seems to have none) who made sure RCC doctrine is in safe hands while JPII does his 'warrior' and spiritual job. One took his church to far away regions and understood that his successor should deepen the 'rational' part. The other deepened it to the depths RCC never was before but understands that RCC today needs an able 'politician' too, energetic, contemporary 'warrior' again - given the modern, global times we are through.
That's my, limited, understanding of it all. What I am sure though is that a lot of people do not understand fully the meaning of a spiritual part of Pope's service - which I am not astonished about in modern 'rational' times. In less unilaterally rational understanding JPII's public suffering, dying simply, 'in the office' - was no less important form of leading his Church, to say the least. Because RCC is not ONLY an administrative institution, dear friends :))

"his exceptional suitability"? I think that he was 78 years old at the time of his election. It must have been clear to all who voted for him that he couldn't hope to be Pope for more than a very few years. In other words, he was chosen as a stop-gap; after the charismatic JP2, the cardinals wanted to be able to breathe deeply and see where they thought the Catholic church should go in the medium-long term.
.
Ratzinger couldn't possibly be part of the medium-long term, and that is indeed how it has panned out. So I would submit, from my almost supremely ignorant position as an agnostic verging on aetheist (brought up as C of E, ie without much spiritual dogmatism), that the main reason for his choice was his age. I can agree that his conservative character must have comforted many who voted for him.

Well you have to admit, John Paul II was a hard act to follow, but to each his own I guess. "Best of luck, live and let live..."

But, I still can't help but wonder, was he pressured to step down? I mean, if I'm not mistaken, it's been 600 years since the last time a Pope actually "retired". So, what rational person wouldn't ask: Why?

" What I am sure though is that a lot of people do not understand fully the meaning of a spiritual part of Pope's service - which I am not astonished about in modern 'rational' times. In less unilaterally rational understanding JPII's public suffering, dying simply, 'in the office' - was no less important form of leading his Church, to say the least. Because RCC is not ONLY an administrative institution, dear friends :))"

_____________________________________

DISCLAIMER: I'm no catholic, but I've always respected JPII for his hstorical role (I cannot judge the inside baseball stuff;-)).

ON TOPIC: The "Bishop of Rome" aka pope isn't just the roman-catholic church's figurehead ("spiritual leader"), but its absolute monarch - that is, it's head of government + law-making authority + chief justice all in one.

You cannot oversee the day-to-day operations of an administration as vast as the church's + authorize laws + decide court cases by simply giving your thumps up or thumps down, but being otherwise hardly able to communicate anymore.

I know enough catholics who felt awkward when it became apparent that JPII effectively couldn't lead the church anymore. In effect, the Vatican's administration probably had taken over at some point.

DER SPIEGEL reports that a German COMIC calendar "predicted" the Pope's resignation for precisely the date on which it occurred, and in characteristic fashion.

The pope announced his resignation on MONDAY, 11 FEBRUARY.

The comic calendar's cartoon for SUNDAY, 10 FEBRUARY, shows the pope siting on a couch, watching the lottery numbers being drawn on TV. He won the jackpot. The caption reads: "Holy Cow! I'm retiring tomorrow!"

I don't think Scola of Milan is favoured. Milan is the richest and most prestigious archbishopric of Italy - and its cardinal is therefore always, a priori, "papabile". But Scola was quite unpopular in Venice, from whence he was shifted last year by Ratzinger.

The Pope's resignation weakens Berlusconi - because Silvio was counting on a (probably illegal) media blitz in the final weeks - and Ratzinger's move now assures Papal politics will dominate and crowd out the headlines Silvio had been counting on.

"All in agreement then: An Italian African from Sicily, whose father is a nonpracticing Muslim from Kenya. What's with the retirement though? I thought Popes were suppose to die on the job. Maybe he's fallen in love? Why not, our Priests are allowed to marry. I use to play cards with one...laughs"

Ratzinger apparently wants union with the Orthodox Church - largely on their terms, including married priests and upper clergymen who get back to the monasteries. That is one key to understanding his actions. I think he is angling to have a say in his successor while still alive - to carry forth this idea of reforming the Western Church in a way to merge it with the Eastern Church (against the rising tide of Muslim conversions and the decline of Christian churches - physically - in Arab lands including the Holy Land).

I would add to it that the issue of a "black Pope" is always there - so a South American or Brazilian cardinal could probably be found of mixed blood, thus giving the RCC its first "African Pope". That is coming sooner or later...

But I think not this time. There have been 110 Popes over the last 1000 years, 95 Italians and 15 non-Italians (approximately). The Italians themselves were not largely in favour of going back to a pope from the peninsula after the death of Wojtyla, because it would have sent the wrong message to the world - that Wojtyla's election was just a fluke.
But now, the Italian Curia will want to send out a message that they have not renounced their hold on "their" institution.

Second of all, the only places Christians still grow in numbers is outside of Europe. It makes sense for the Church to foster exactly that development, especially in those countries which are subject to Muslim influence.

Third of all, attachment to one's own ethnicity is in decline when it comes to institutional leadership, see Obama (although not always without friction). I assume that the Catholic church is subject to similar trends.

I am sure you are more close to the action in Italy and have a point of view from personal experience that will complement or might even contradict this picture.

I guess it's just like in real economics. If your headquarters are not located in your biggest markets, you might want to have at least a CEO that is an expert in those markets and really knows the customers there.

"I guess it's just like in real economics. If your headquarters are not located in your biggest markets, you might want to have at least a CEO that is an expert in those markets and really knows the customers there."

Well said. But who are the true "shareholders"? Opus Dei has a LOT of money these days. And there are still a few archbishoprics in Italy that command large financial resources.

Funny how popes have almost never come from the poorest areas of southern Italy, but have often closely followed the richest cities in the peninsula.
Of course, Ratzinger came from Munich, one of the richest Catholic dioceses in Europe.
Wojtyla would not fit that description... unless one accepts that there was American and CIA involvement behind his election - through Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia...

The biggest markets are about money after all, not "souls", right? On that score, it would be easier to elect a pope from New York than Rio de Janeiro.

Which leads us to another point: Why not an American Pope? Cardinal Spellman was determined to become the first American a few decades ago. That did not work out so well, so apparently he felt it necessary to drag the US into the Vietnam War to prove his bona fides...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Spellman

Unlike in e.g. the US, France and Belgium, the German and Austrian catholic and protestant churches have their contributions collected by the state via the so-called "church tax" - which means there is no way around actually paying your due in full, and on time.

That makes the German-Austrian contingent one of the main contributors to the Vatican's coffers, even if both countries taken together have only 30-35 million faithful, less than Poland.

At the Vatican, the "Germanic" contingent is usually the second or third largest among top office holders (well after Italy, and at par with the US).

Money makes the world go round.

I use the term "Germanic" on purpose, btw - I just learned that the German and Austrian churches are counted as one contingent by the Vatican (nominally, the two churches still have the same primate - title: "Primus Germaniae"). Austria ceased being a part of Germany 150 years ago (1866), but that's apparently too recent an event for the Vatican to even bother. LOL

I admit that I find the Vatican's "machinations" nothing short of fascinating. Great show - especially for those not directly affected by it, such as us protestants.

What strikes me in these posts is the number of people talking about France as if it was drawing money from the EU and getting its hand on "Northerner's" money. France is actually a contributor to the EU budget and financial stability fund, and knowing that a lot of what we get goes to our farmers, who are not that numerous, you can easily guess that the average French city living person is contributing a similar amount of money to the EU as the average German, Dutch or Finn, and not getting more than them in return.

So why the fuss and the accusations ? Do people think that we want to get poor enough to qualify for the support some other EU countries are getting ? Why would we want to do that ????

Being actually again France I have to underline that the wages in France are at least the double as in Germany and the standard of life is luxurious everywhere I go.
If I compare Germany with France then Germany looks somewhat better as Mali.
And usually the French are in pension when they are 40 by having the longest vacations and a week of only 35 hours.
Which country can offer that to its citizens?
France is at least 50 years ahead of Germany and the UK.
And anything in France is much cheaper as in Germany.
In comparison to the rich Frenchman and their immense luxury the Germans look like poor beggars in their rags.
So the French model has been the most successful in Europe over centuries:)

Well, it may be more an impression than a certainty but when President Hollande talks about a transfer union and solidarity it looks suspicious. A few years ago Mme Lagarde openly suggested that Germany should slow down because several other European countries could not follow, and to-day we see that the French Economics minister openly admitting that the 3 pct budget deficit will be exceeded. Besides, France also thinks that the Euro is overvalued.

So when we add it all up this gives the impression that France is beginning to lag behind and needs help (or expects to be needing help in the future....) in the form of transfers and solidarity. The single currency was basically a French idea but instead of admitting that perhaps it wasn't such a good idea, and instead of making the necessary sweeping reforms, France (others too...) start blaming outside factors, hence the need for "solidarity"

Germans and all further generations always should be aware that the French are their arch enemy and the French will always stay their arch enemies by genetic disposition.
We need the Maginot-line back for keeping out the French of Germany:)

Lagarde is condamning Germany's management of the euro crisis, austerity and deflation brought more debt in EZ

What reforms? ach Ja, our workers shouldn't be paid more than € 4OO, and fireable at any moment?

You are misinterpretating France constitution, we made a Revolution so that the people became free, not the serfs that your neo-liberal master want them to become. You had the chance to be born in the fifties and benefitted of the 30 glorious economical years to get a life, but your children and grandchildren will not have such a freedom and chance.

The single currency was a EU design, and a German will too It was a good bargain for making Eastern Germany annexion becoming less expensive (which had to bear a complete ruin of its economy, that they shared a too expensive DM with western Germany...), we were all paying interests for that.

Kohl wouldn't have rescued the franc in 1992, when he let down the pound and the lira, if he didn't want to carry on the EMU

Of course, taday the Germans are accusing France of having imposed the euro, but they weren't when the whole EZ was rescuing their economy in the beginning of the euro era.

BTW Delors was working with the Bundesbank for implementing the rules of ECB, and this, before that the Berlin wall was fallen down

Marie Claude...., please misunderstand me correctly. First, I did not "have the chance to be born in the fifties" - no, I would have liked to but had the misfortune to be born in 1939 and it wasn't until 1952 that most of Europe regained the standard of living it had before the war so for me that was about 13 years standing still. My generation contributed to rebuilding Europe's economy and we worked 48 hours a week, later generously reduced to 44 hours in the early sixties. 2 weeks paid vacation, later increased to 3 weeks provided we did not take all three weeks at the same time. And we never complained, because in those times we hoped that to-morrow would be better than to-day.

So when I talk about France reforming I will give you a few examples: a working week of 35 hours ("payé trente-neuf") just seems impossible to me. Workforce mobility and flexibility within France is severely impaired because of the high cost of moving and selling property (frais de mutation - "frais de notaire" 9,5% vs. 1% in Sweden and 3% in Germany). The 400 Euro jobs you mention in Germany is a taxfree incentive for pensioners who want to add a little extra to their monthly pay - it is not the wages of a German worker. (Pumpernickel and Co. tell me if I am wrong). German unions are often in a partnership and co-operates with German employers whilst French unions are almost at war with French employers.

So a little flexibility and a little less confrontational attitude within France would not hurt and a few reforms - including a slim down of local and national administrations and Government - could even increase the living standard of mes amis les français.

Now, the Euro, the single currency, well we can discuss about that from here to eternity. I think it was a wrong decision.

"So when I talk about France reforming I will give you a few examples: a working week of 35 hours ("payé trente-neuf")"

it only concerned big enterprises and or administrations, and paid 39 hours, only lasted a couple of years, as these wages didn't get their yearlt bonuses due to inflation, also most of the people that had cared for their work and position wrked more than these 35 hours, without extra payings, and small enterprises if they wanted to fulfil their orders had to rely on extra paid hours !

So the whole thing is rather a "plouf dans l'eau"

"just seems impossible to me. Workforce mobility and flexibility within France is severely impaired because of the high cost of moving and selling property (frais de mutation - "frais de notaire" 9,5% vs. 1% in Sweden and 3% in Germany)."

Hmm, I wouldn't be so sure on the differences for the costs, anyways it wasn't a excuse, at least not for people like me, who moved about 10 times in different regions during our working career

"The 400 Euro jobs you mention in Germany is a taxfree incentive for pensioners who want to add a little extra to their monthly pay"

NO, it's for 7 million german workers, and don't mention what kind of retirement wages they will have, a generalised Salvation army service will have to be undertaken there !

"So a little flexibility and a little less confrontational attitude within France would not hurt and a few reforms - including a slim down of local and national administrations and Government - could even increase the living standard of mes amis les français."

you really aren't aware of what is on in France, you still rely on the Brit and German papers to get disinformation

It's more than a decade that our administrations and big enterprises rely on 'interimaires" for supplying extra work, it's more than a decade also that they only make "contrats à durée déterminée", gérally one year, and renewabble, it's why young people have difficulties to get credits from the banks, they aren't definitly hired ! hmm flexibility exists, ask the people that work in stores and in Hostellerie, ask the people that make "roulements de nuit" in numerous enterprises, so that the production don't slow down

The only cut down that would help is to diminish the administrations offices, especially those that treat taxes, departments, regions, and now the Brussels !

The thing is the euro doesn't fit our economy, which is based more on services and agriculture, therefore more concurrenced in the world which currency basis is the dollar. The euro would be equal to the dollar, we wouldn't be in such a dilemn.

Now, I expect that Hollande will tell Merkel to get the hell out with her DM, that he will annouce us that he'll quit the EZ like he launched the Mali Campain

Nice to hear from you again and have you around. Thanks also for asking after me. I was fine but busy with family and friends.

Sadly, MC is right about the 7 million on Minijobs in Germany. Rather than having them draw unemployment benefit and then still work in the black economy, as many if not most of the Spaniards are doing and thus cheating the working tax payers, in Germany they work short hours, are paid 400 – 800€, pay tax and social security above 450€ Euros now and receive supplements, as needed, to pay their rent, heating etc. to secure their „Grundsicherung“. When we talk about 7.8% unemploed in Germany this is not taking into account these 7 million „hidden umemployed“, as I call them. It is silly to pretend that all is well in Germany and have the Greeks and Spaniards whine about their unemployed young and point fingers at the fat Germans doing so well out of the misery of the GIPS. We are in the same position but our solution is a more honest, less corrupt one. Our politicians try to brainwash the popolos about our real situation but most informed people know what is going on. No pain, no gain.

The obscene thing is that we could afford to live like „Gott in Frankreich“ and now, under the pressure of the upcoming elections, something is being done about it. The French, bless them, cannot afford their social care and, therefore, are eager to get their paws into the German honey pot, witness Momsieur Olangd's demands for Eurobonds. Of course, they would never wish to leave the EZ, as our blinkered nationalist MC is advocating. It would be their and Europe's undoing and ould destroy them nd Europe. Germany, in the end, would benefit but for the price of seeing Europe again to revert to poodle status for 17/27 little countries, no match for the big boys.

A Northern Union is a stupid idea and short sighted. Appealing only to some right wing nuts suffering from myopia and racism and where, pray, does England come into it. Greece to the power of three as part of a Northern Union? Hilarious!

It started all right but it got ternished in the middle by your ever silly fears on your wallet

"he French, bless them, cannot afford their social care and, therefore, are eager to get their paws into the German honey pot, witness Momsieur Olangd's demands for Eurobonds."

The Frencharen't living in a aging country, so their social care and retirement wages have more chance to be sustainable than in Germany. Merkel is only trying to protect her german rich rentiers. Eurobonds is the argument vs fiscal union. You perfectly know that the german way of managing the euro crisis was a disaster, except for Germany of course.

The people that are the most afraid that their honey pot, the euro, disappears, are the Germans !

Time is coming where the people of Europe will say NEIN, and it's not blinkering to tell truths that you don't like to hear.

You never demonstrated that you were good Europeans, just good Germans !

It's a give and take. If Frau Merkel is pushing the „greater political union“ button she is doing it in the safe knowledge that this goes deeply against French instincts and, therefore, will never happen against French wishes but it looks good in the Eurepean arena. Kabuki!
Ceasing to play such Kabuki she expect in return that France ceases to demand access to Germany's credit card by means of Eurobonds. France should know by now that this will not happen on Merkel's watch. If we should experience the misfortune of the SPD/Greens, possibly with the help of Die Linke, forming the next government, Monsieur Olangd may get his Eurobonds after all, Germany will open its Treasury for the French to pilfer through. With the FDP disappearing without a trace and being overtaken by Die Linke and with a lot of Middle Class Germans in fear of joining the Underclass there is a real and present danger that the worst will happen and the SPD/Greens will win.
Best remedy to avoid such a disaster for Merkel would be to show some steel and block any further heroin being given to the junkies, Greece and Cyprus, forcing them to return to their old currencies and start devaluaing to their hearts delight. Zorbas and I might then buy adjoining properties in Crete for an apple and an egg and spend our days sipping Rezina, playing chess and discussing the charms of Anjuli or admiring the wit of our new Emmafinney, no longer a Morlock.

Assuming that we bury the CAP to give the third world a chance and also reduce food prices throughout, we can repatriate these monies, reallocate them to increases of wages, internal investment in infrastructure, simply put more meat behind our credit card ... way to go.
A free trade agreement with NAFTA might bring our food prices in line with the USA. EU, in any case, is self-sufficient in agriculture but due to this stupid CAP hampering competition it is far to costly.

All Germany’s fault again, after the French enthusiam for the €? It was only yesterday that you complaining about Britain not supporting France in the Rhineland and being responsible for the Vichy government.
.
Your revision of history has been adequately debunked so many times here, but what an earth this has to do with Hollande’s stupidity and the current “EU” fiasco?
.
Can you give us ONE good reason why Britain should have backed France when Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland? Do you not know that world opinion had had enough of French hysterical aggression against Germany following Versailles? Do you know of France’s vengeful occupation of the Ruhr in 1923, which met with passive resistance in Germany, and which caused the mark to tumble and financial chaos in Europe?
.
So though it is very easy to say, in 2013, that Hitler ‘should have been stopped’ in 1936, then I’m afraid it’s not so simple as that. If Germany had not been treated so shabbily at Versailles and in 1923, then people the world over might have had a bit more sympathy for French worries.
.
Anyway, if the French were so worried about the Rhineland, why didn’t they do something about it? They didn’t need the British Navy to do the job, did they? And Britain’s army was very small.
.
French policy after Versailles contributed much to the rise of Hitler. We all know that.

So you’re now telling us that Vichy France was the result of British attitudes to Germany in the Thirties !??
.
Next, you will be telling us that Vichy collaboration (mutual denunciations of feuding French and of course the Jewish population) was a just way of punishing the British for French stupidity. Further, the French attitude to creating the EC/EU instead of one of gratitude was one of seeking to penalise the “anglo-saxons”, the British in particular, for the series of arrogant blunders that were 100% French.
.
This mind-set persists in your politicians to this very day the failure of the € and “EU”, right down to the horse-meat scandal.
.
Yet you wonder why France has few friends and waffle on about how France is “westward leaning” (??)

"All Germany’s fault again, after the French enthusiam for the €? It was only yesterday that you complaining about Britain not supporting France in the Rhineland and being responsible for the Vichy government."

oh, certainly not only the French, it was fested everywhere in Europe. how comes that the British stores accept euros since the beginning ?

"Your revision of history has been adequately debunked so many times here, but what an earth this has to do with Hollande’s stupidity and the current “EU” fiasco?"

you're the one that always bring "Vichy" on board !

Certainly it's revision for people like you that prefer their legends of the braves, fortunately, today the Historians are debunking your misbehavings !

"Can you give us ONE good reason why Britain should have backed France when Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland?"

Because you were a co-signataire of the Versailles treaty, and a supposed allie. Besides Baldwin wanted to interven, but was forbidden to make it by your Nazy king, who still was popular then (all explained in the vid)

"Do you not know that world opinion had had enough of French hysterical aggression against Germany following Versailles? Do you know of France’s vengeful occupation of the Ruhr in 1923, which met with passive resistance in Germany, and which caused the mark to tumble and financial chaos in Europe?"

The Brit appeasers were, that were eagering to trade with Germany. Germany wasn't paying any war reparations, not only France tried to get them paid, Belgium too.

the Germans had no intention to pay anything, and how they initiated Weimar inflation for nullifying their "debt"

"Anyway, if the French were so worried about the Rhineland, why didn’t they do something about it? They didn’t need the British Navy to do the job, did they? And Britain’s army was very small."

oh that "Pilate" behaviour, you were tied with a alliance, France couldn't launch a operation on Germany without Britiah and American Agreement, (seen how the 1923 intervention was condamned by such nice people), the americans were in full "isolationism"... if we had lauched a war, I'm sure that you would have been the first to call us "Agressors"

"French policy after Versailles contributed much to the rise of Hitler. We all know that."

No it's your passivity in front of Hitler tests of the Allies, and encouragements to Hitler to go on

"Next, you will be telling us that Vichy collaboration (mutual denunciations of feuding French and of course the Jewish population) was a just way of punishing the British for French stupidity. Further, the French attitude to creating the EC/EU instead of one of gratitude was one of seeking to penalise the “anglo-saxons”, the British in particular, for the series of arrogant blunders that were 100% French."

The French didn't get rid of their Jews like many of your trading partners did, and besides of that, unlike Spain, Portugal, Italy, Britain refused to take our Jews that wanted to escape !

"Yet you wonder why France has few friends and waffle on about how France is “westward leaning” (??)

I see that France still is the object of envy, you would like to see us as a second rank country, too bad we aren't complying !

BTW, Not many people think like you in Britain, even in Camoron's government, they who want to share our Defense, say, if the Russians had the velleity to invade Britain !

only racist UKIPERs of your accabit are nostalgic of their past, when they could make sun shine and raining in Europe, finito , you are BROKE !

It is almost genetic and a matter of course that each French will always treat a German shabbily.:)
Everywhere you go in France Germans are regarded as inferior retards and idiots.
People in Germany just have to be aware that they are extremely hated by the French and Hollande is satisfying their extreme anti-German feelings.
It is a mere lie talking of any kid of a reconciliation:)
It does only exist in some books.

This just shows that the German-French axis is over.
France will be treated as a 'club med' country, and the north will demand its pound of flesh for propping up the south and east.
The UK position is far closer to the norths, and so it will be the stronger in negotiations.
France can threaten to make things as difficult as it wants, but without the north, and in particular Germany, it is yelling from the sidelines as the east will join with the northern money.

The UK looks for a poodle-handler, since America is turning its back to Grand Briain, hey, you don't represent the majoritiy of the american population now, each year, British origin people number there diminishes

ahahah

oh BTW, The US allocated 50 millions dollars to France for the Mali campain, can you align?

And that is it? An anglophobic rant and the mention that France cannot afford its own campaigns.
The USA has always looked out for itself first, that is well known in the UK.
The UK needs no handler, Cameron would not have made that speech if it did.

No, I am just pointing out where things are heading.
This is how the world sees France:http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340202/president-fran-ois-hollande-schooled-mep-nigel-farage-veronique-de-rugy

"This just shows that the German-French axis is over."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To explain it clearly : The Franco-German axis has been based on an extreme domination of Germany by the French and a permanent subjugation of Germany to any weird French orders including permanent humiliation of Germany.

Now Germany was throwing away the rule f French slavery over Germany.
The French can go their way alone and the Germans go the other way.

You are right!
While Britain paid their campaigns the French always want to make business if they invade as aggressors into foreign countries.
We know this typical French behaviour since the affair in Indochina.
The Americans were more than wise leaving the French alone in Indochina as well as in Algeria.
Backing and supporting France means always that you have to pay until the end of time.
Let the French alone with their ClubMed , may be the Spaniards, Greeks and Italians love them but the relations between Germany and France must get cut off as perfect as ever possible.
Hollande gives Germany the best occasion for real independance from French domination and rule.
Germany must stop contacts to France.
Poland is much more important and different to France the Germans there are not spit but welcome.